Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 01:42:07AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
>> The fix is included in 9.2.5, it's just not noted in the release notes.
> Yes, I missed it because I didn't understand the importance of these
> commit messages:
> commit 17fa4c321ccf9693de406faffe6b2
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 01:42:07AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2013-11-10 17:40:31 -0700, Noah Yetter wrote:
> > Like your customer, this bug has blown up my standby servers, twice in the
> > last month: the first time all 4 replicas, the second time (mysteriously
> > but luckily) onl
Hi,
On 2013-11-10 17:40:31 -0700, Noah Yetter wrote:
> Like your customer, this bug has blown up my standby servers, twice in the
> last month: the first time all 4 replicas, the second time (mysteriously
> but luckily) only 1 of them.
>
> At any rate, since the fix isn't available yet, is/are th
Like your customer, this bug has blown up my standby servers, twice in the
last month: the first time all 4 replicas, the second time (mysteriously
but luckily) only 1 of them.
At any rate, since the fix isn't available yet, is/are there any
configuration changes that can be made or maintenance pr
On 22.10.2013 14:14, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi Robert, Heikki,
On 2013-09-24 13:25:41 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
I'm afraid this patch was a few bricks shy of a load. The
log_newpage_buffer() function asserts that:
/* We should be in a critical section. */
Assert(CritSectionCou
Hi Robert, Heikki,
On 2013-09-24 13:25:41 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I'm afraid this patch was a few bricks shy of a load. The
> > log_newpage_buffer() function asserts that:
> >
> > > /* We should be in a critical section. */
> > > Assert(CritSectionCount > 0);
> >
> > But the call in
On 2013-09-23 14:41:16 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 06.06.2013 17:22, Robert Haas wrote:
> >On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Andres Freund
> >wrote:
> >>>Yeah, I think it's fine. The patch also looks fine, although I think
> >>>the comments could use a bit of tidying. I guess we need t
Andres Freund wrote:
>On 2013-09-23 14:41:16 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> (spotted this while working on a patch, and ran into the assertion on
>crash
>> recovery)
>
>You got the assertion failure about CritSectionCount during recovery?
>If so, I do not understand, that code shouldn't be ex
On 2013-09-23 14:41:16 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 06.06.2013 17:22, Robert Haas wrote:
> >On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Andres Freund
> >wrote:
> >>>Yeah, I think it's fine. The patch also looks fine, although I think
> >>>the comments could use a bit of tidying. I guess we need t
On 06.06.2013 17:22, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Yeah, I think it's fine. The patch also looks fine, although I think
the comments could use a bit of tidying. I guess we need to
back-patch this all the way back to 8.4? It will require some
adjustm
On 2013-06-06 10:22:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> Yeah, I think it's fine. The patch also looks fine, although I think
> >> the comments could use a bit of tidying. I guess we need to
> >> back-patch this all the way back to 8.4? It wi
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Yeah, I think it's fine. The patch also looks fine, although I think
>> the comments could use a bit of tidying. I guess we need to
>> back-patch this all the way back to 8.4? It will require some
>> adjustments for the older branches.
>
On 2013-05-29 23:01:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> Thought about that, but given that 9.3's visibilitymap_set already will
> >> already FPI heap pages I concluded it wouldn't really be an improvement
> >> since it's only one ||log_heap_pag
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Thought about that, but given that 9.3's visibilitymap_set already will
>> already FPI heap pages I concluded it wouldn't really be an improvement
>> since it's only one ||log_heap_page or so there. Not sure what's
>> better. Will write the
On 2013-05-29 03:56:38 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-05-28 21:36:17 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Andres Freund
> > wrote:
> > > Guessing around I looked and noticed the following problematic pattern:
> > > 1) A: wants to do an update, doesn't have enough
On 2013-05-28 21:36:17 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Guessing around I looked and noticed the following problematic pattern:
> > 1) A: wants to do an update, doesn't have enough freespace
> > 2) A: extends the relation on the filesystem level
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Guessing around I looked and noticed the following problematic pattern:
> 1) A: wants to do an update, doesn't have enough freespace
> 2) A: extends the relation on the filesystem level (RelationGetBufferForTuple)
> 3) A: does PageInit (Relat
Hi,
A customer of ours reporting a standby loosing sync with the primary due
to the following error:
CONTEXT: xlog redo visible: rel 1663/XXX/XXX; blk 173717
WARNING: page 173717 of relation base/XXX/XXX is uninitialized
...
PANIC: WAL contains references to invalid pages
Guessing around I loo
18 matches
Mail list logo
