The "affected_rows=0" is the more detailed error information here (but that is generated by Bacula itself). This is not a problem that Postgresql will give more information about because an SQL command that updates nothing is perfectly OK in general. It just means that the WHERE clause didn't match anything.
__Martin >>>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 13:50:27 -0600, kjohnson said: > > Hi, > > Again, thanks for the interest in my problem. I was certainly not expecting > a patch for this old version of Bacula. This system will get a Bacula > version update when the update to Debian occurs, according to the local > policy governing this system. I actually did not assume that there was a > Bacula bug here, though I could argue that there is a bug of not reporting > more detailed error information from Postgresql -- I am sure that Postgresql > provides more detailed information than 'Update failed'. > > It's too late to run the SQL command you suggested. The dbcheck run > mentioned in my original post would have deleted it if it was present. > > I have not seen this error recur. If it does, I will look into the tracing > you mention. While I have no direct experience with Bacula trace files, it > does not seem that it would be impossible to use tools to find a database > error, and then perhaps see the error returned by Postgres. I could be wrong > about that. I might also be mistaken in my thinking that knowing why the > update failed would be helpful. > > Best regards, > > Ken > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 2:13 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Troubleshoot bdb.h fatal error? > > Hi Ken, > > Am 11.12.2025 um 20:26 schrieb [email protected]: > > Rob, Arno, > > > > Thank you for taking an interest in my problem. > > You're welcome! > > Looks like the simple, obvious things do not help us here. So... > > > Answers to questions, as best as I can provide: > > > >> from Rob: > >> You mentioned that the last two admin jobs failed. Was that a typo? If > >> not, what errors did the last job (unmount, eject) give? > > > > The errors for jobid 27943 look very much like the errors for 27941. > > > > 08-Dec 14:21 linux2-dir JobId 27943: Fatal error: bdb.h:140 Update failed: > > affected_rows=0 for UPDATE Job SET JobStatus='R',Level=' > > ',StartTime='2025-12-08 > > 14:21:57',ClientId=1,JobTDate=1765225317,PoolId=0,FileSetId=0 WHERE > > JobId=27943 > > 08-Dec 14:21 linux2-dir JobId 27943: Fatal error: bdb.h:140 Update failed: > > affected_rows=0 for UPDATE Job SET JobStatus='f',Level=' > > ',StartTime='2025-12-08 > > 14:21:57',ClientId=1,JobTDate=1765225317,PoolId=0,FileSetId=0 WHERE > > JobId=27943 > > We#ll need to find out what failed here. There is a simple possibility > for the catalog update to fail, that is when the row its supposed to > update does not exist. > > In bconsole, do > > sql > select * from job where jobid=27943; > > and see if it finds that row. > > If it doesn't, I'm wondering why the fact that such a job could not be > created was not reported -- it should have been. > > > 08-Dec 14:21 linux2-dir JobId 27943: Warning: Error updating job record. > > bdb.h:140 Update failed: affected_rows=0 for UPDATE Job SET > > JobStatus='f',EndTime='2025-12-08 > > 14:21:57',ClientId=1,JobBytes=0,ReadBytes=0,JobFiles=0,JobErrors=1,VolSessionId=0,VolSessionTime=0,PoolId=0,FileSetId=0,JobTDate=1765225317,RealEndTime='2025-12-08 > > 14:21:57',PriorJobId=0,HasBase=0,PurgedFiles=0 WHERE JobId=27943 > > 08-Dec 14:21 linux2-dir JobId 27943: Warning: Error getting Job record for > > Job report: ERR=sql_get.c:303 No Job found for JobId 27943 > > We can probably guess the result of above exercise, but let's not guess :-) > > > 08-Dec 14:21 linux2-dir JobId 27943: Error: Bacula 9.6.7 (10Dec20): > > 08-Dec-2025 14:21:57 > > So we would have to investigate if the DIR for some reason "forgot" to > create a job record when the job was started (I have never experienced > such a thing, but that doesn't prove anything), if it didn't log it for > some reason, if you just missed the error message (that would be > convenient in this case :-) or if something deleted it in between > successful job creation and the first update. > > Debugging, as a user, something that did *not* happen is a bit of a > challenge, but we can probably achieve something if you can reproduce > the problem. > > However, we'll probably not be able to convince Eric and team to fix > issues in version 9 anymore. > > Thus -- would you be able to upgrade to a recent version, preferrbla the > most recent one? > > I would recommend using the packages you can subscribe to at > https://www.bacula.org/bacula-binary-package-download/ but, if that's > not a choice you would consider, building from source is also an option. > Proper packaging is above my pay grade, though :-) > > The alternative to enable tracing, debug, reproduce and eventually > carefully read a few million lines of traces files will probably get us > somewhere, but will not actually solve anything... > > Cheers, > > Arno > > -- > Arno Lehmann > > IT-Service Lehmann > Sandstr. 6, 49080 Osnabrück > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bacula-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bacula-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users > _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
