Glad to hear that. However the fix was made by Akio Ishida, who is a new pgpool developer, and the credit should go to him. -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> Hi Tatsuo, > > Thank you for your fix. > I had same issues as Nimesh. I applied this patch and i am not getting the > below error anymore. > > *ERROR: prepared statement > "S_5" > already exists* > > Thanks for your help again. > > Thanks > Deepak > > > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:42:46 +0900 (JST) > > From: Tatsuo Ishii <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool probelms > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected], [email protected] > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > Sorry for delay. Akio Ishida found a cause of this bug. Here is the > > patches made by him which should fix your problem. Please try... > > > > $ diff -u pool_process_query.c.org pool_process_query.c > > --- pool_process_query.c.org 2009-05-04 19:53:29.000000000 +0900 > > +++ pool_process_query.c 2009-07-15 13:03:25.000000000 +0900 > > @@ -2051,13 +2051,13 @@ > > > > if (qcnt >= qn) > > { > > - if (qcnt >= qn + prepared_list.cnt) > > + if (prepared_list.cnt == 0) > > { > > reset_prepared_list(&prepared_list); > > return 2; > > } > > > > - send_deallocate(backend, &prepared_list, qcnt - qn); > > + send_deallocate(backend, &prepared_list, 0); > > return 1; > > } > > > > > > -- > > Tatsuo Ishii > > SRA OSS, Inc. Japan > > > > > Hi Tatsuo, > > > > > > Can you let me know, what might be wrong here? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Nimesh. > > > > > > > > > On 6/17/09, Nimesh Satam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Tatsuo, > > > > > > > > I am getting this on pgpool-II 2.2.2. I don't have any case studies > > ready > > > > at this moment. But here are the data_logs below in the mail which > > might > > > > help you. Three statements were passed S_1, S_2, S_3, but when the user > > > > disconnected only S_1, S_3 got DEALLOCATED. Same happened at the end > > when > > > > S_1 and S_3 were prepared after disconnection only S_1 got DEALLOCATED. > > Will > > > > this be causing the problem. > > > > > > > > *2009-06-17 03:15:07 PDT [11025]: [3-1] LOG: duration: 0.437 ms parse > > > > S_1: BEGIN* > > > > 2009-06-17 03:15:07 PDT [11025]: [4-1] LOG: duration: 0.009 ms bind > > S_1: > > > > BEGIN > > > > *2009-06-17 03:15:07 PDT [11025]: [13-1] LOG: duration: 0.009 ms > > parse > > > > S_2: COMMIT* > > > > 2009-06-17 03:15:13 PDT [11025]: [14-1] LOG: duration: 0.042 ms bind > > S_1: > > > > BEGIN > > > > *2009-06-17 03:16:10 PDT [11025]: [8071-1] LOG: duration: 0.010 ms > > parse > > > > S_3: ROLLBACK* > > > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43176-1] LOG: duration: 0.025 ms > > > > statement: BEGIN > > > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43177-1] LOG: duration: 0.019 ms > > > > statement: RESET ALL > > > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43178-1] LOG: duration: 0.106 ms > > > > statement: COMMIT > > > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43179-1] LOG: duration: 0.009 ms > > > > statement: BEGIN > > > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43180-1] LOG: duration: 0.021 ms > > > > statement: SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION DEFAULT > > > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43181-1] LOG: duration: 0.011 ms > > > > statement: COMMIT > > > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43182-1] LOG: duration: 0.007 ms > > > > statement: BEGIN > > > > *2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43183-1] LOG: duration: 0.019 ms > > > > statement: DEALLOCATE "S_1"* > > > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43184-1] LOG: duration: 0.009 ms > > > > statement: COMMIT > > > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43185-1] LOG: duration: 0.007 ms > > > > statement: BEGIN > > > > *2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43186-1] LOG: duration: 0.010 ms > > > > statement: DEALLOCATE "S_3"* > > > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43187-1] LOG: duration: 0.009 ms > > > > statement: COMMIT > > > > 2009-06-17 03:20:15 PDT [11025]: [43188-1] LOG: duration: 0.023 ms > > parse > > > > S_1: BEGIN > > > > 2009-06-17 03:20:15 PDT [11025]: [43189-1] LOG: duration: 0.003 ms > > bind > > > > S_1: BEGIN* > > > > 2009-06-17 03:20:16 PDT [11025]: [43286-1] ERROR: prepared statement > > "S_2" > > > > already exists* > > > > 2009-06-17 03:20:17 PDT [11025]: [43288-1] LOG: duration: 0.009 ms > > bind > > > > S_1: BEGIN > > > > 2009-06-17 03:20:21 PDT [11025]: [45950-1] LOG: duration: 0.010 ms > > parse > > > > S_3: COMMIT > > > > 2009-06-17 03:20:31 PDT [11025]: [45951-1] LOG: duration: 0.027 ms > > bind > > > > S_1: BEGIN > > > > 2009-06-17 03:25:58 PDT [11025]: [70834-1] LOG: duration: 0.034 ms > > bind > > > > S_1: BEGIN > > > > *2009-06-17 03:25:58 PDT [11025]: [70888-1] LOG: duration: 0.012 ms > > > > statement: DEALLOCATE "S_1"* > > > > > > > > We have kept the *connection_cache = true *and the *reset_query_list = > > > > 'ABORT; RESET ALL; SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION DEFAULT'* > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Nimesh. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> If you are getting this with pgpool-II 2.2.2, please send a > > > >> self-contained test case if possible. > > > >> -- > > > >> Tatsuo Ishii > > > >> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan > > > >> > > > >> > Hi, > > > >> > > > > >> > We are using pgpool-II in Master-slave, Loadbalance mode and are > > facing > > > >> > issues with the same. Can anybody lets us know what's going wrong > > here? > > > >> > > > > >> > 1) We are getting many entries in the database logs with following > > > >> errors: > > > >> > 2009-06-16 21:42:47 PDT [11040]: [2486-1] ERROR: prepared statement > > > >> "S_2" > > > >> > already exists > > > >> > 2009-06-16 21:43:04 PDT [11040]: [2535-1] ERROR: prepared statement > > > >> "S_3" > > > >> > already exists > > > >> > 2009-06-16 21:43:48 PDT [11040]: [2546-1] ERROR: prepared statement > > > >> "S_4" > > > >> > already exists > > > >> > 2009-06-16 21:43:49 PDT [11040]: [2564-1] ERROR: prepared statement > > > >> "S_5" > > > >> > already exists > > > >> > 2009-06-16 21:44:49 PDT [11040]: [2576-1] ERROR: prepared statement > > > >> "S_6" > > > >> > already exists > > > >> > > > > >> > This causes the application to fail. {This was supposed to be fixed > > in > > > >> 2.2.1 > > > >> > and later versions?} > > > >> > > > > >> > 2) We are seeing stuck queries when connecting through pgpool. ps U > > > >> postgres > > > >> > shows all the queries in bind state: > > > >> > 5003 ? Ss 0:52 postgres: ck rpro xxx.xx.xx.xx(52218) > > BIND > > > >> > 5004 ? Ss 0:28 postgres: ck rpro xxx.xx.xx.xx(52220) > > BIND > > > >> > 18961 ? Ss 0:54 postgres: ck rpro xxx.xx.xx.xx(34508) > > BIND > > > >> > 18962 ? Ss 0:39 postgres: ck rpro xxx.xx.xx.xx(34510) > > BIND > > > >> > > > > >> > This queries are not performing any activity and seem to have > > hanged. > > > >> > > > > >> > Both applications in question are Java applications and we are using > > the > > > >> > postgres version 8.3.3 > > > >> > > > > >> > Any help here would be much appreciated. > > > >> > > > > >> > Regards, > > > >> > Nimesh. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pgpool-general mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general > > > > > > End of Pgpool-general Digest, Vol 56, Issue 16 > > ********************************************** > > _______________________________________________ Pgpool-general mailing list [email protected] http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
