Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: >> Today we got a report in the spanish list about the message in $subject. >> The server is 8.4 running on Windows. > > I accidentally managed to reproduce this in HEAD just now, by kill -9'ing > a backend that was in the midst of a COPY IN operation (I was trying to > reproduce Neil Best's unrelated issue...) The server log is
You're lucky. I once tried to trigger the rm_cleanup() code with repeated "killall -9 postmaster", but failed. IIRC I just put an abort() at the right place in the end. > So that confirms my speculation that btree index cleanup is the source > of the message. We have two basic approaches to dealing with it: > > 1. Decide that the check added to XLogInsert is wrong and take it out. > > 2. Arrange for some sort of explicit state transition between the > WAL-reading and cleanup phases of recovery, and make sure XLogInsert > knows about it. I'd suggest we temporarily allow XLog insertion by calling LocalSetXLogInsertAllowed() just before the rm_cleanup() loop, and reset it with "LocalXLogInsertAllowed = -1" just after the loop. Like we do at the startup checkpoint. The sanity check still feels very useful to me, I'd hate to lose it. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
