From: "Fujii Masao" <masao.fu...@gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:53 PM, MauMau <maumau...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm wondering if the fix discussed in the above thread solves my problem.
I
found the following differences between Horiguchi-san's case and my case:
(1)
Horiguchi-san says the bug outputs the message:
WARNING: page 0 of relation base/16384/16385 does not exist
On the other hand, I got the message:
WARNING: page 506747 of relation base/482272/482304 was uninitialized
(2)
Horiguchi-san produced the problem when he shut the standby immediately
and
restarted it. However, I saw the problem during failover.
(3)
Horiguchi-san did not use any index, but in my case the WARNING message
refers to an index.
But there's a similar point. Horiguchi-san says the problem occurs after
DELETE+VACUUM. In my case, I shut the primary down while the application
was doing INSERT/UPDATE. As the below messages show, some vacuuming was
running just before the immediate shutdown:
...
LOG: automatic vacuum of table "GOLD.scm1.tbl1": index scans: 0
pages: 0 removed, 36743 remain
tuples: 0 removed, 73764 remain
system usage: CPU 0.09s/0.11u sec elapsed 0.66 sec
LOG: automatic analyze of table "GOLD.scm1.tbl1" system usage: CPU
0.00s/0.14u sec elapsed 0.32 sec
LOG: automatic vacuum of table "GOLD.scm1.tbl2": index scans: 0
pages: 0 removed, 12101 remain
tuples: 40657 removed, 44142 remain system usage: CPU 0.06s/0.06u sec
elapsed 0.30 sec
LOG: automatic analyze of table "GOLD.scm1.tbl2" system usage: CPU
0.00s/0.06u sec elapsed 0.14 sec
LOG: received immediate shutdown request
...
Could you tell me the details of the problem discussed and fixed in the
upcoming minor release? I would to like to know the phenomenon and its
conditions, and whether it applies to my case.
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20121206.130458.170549097.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp
Could you read the discussion in the above thread?
Yes, I've just read the discussion (it was difficult for me...)
Although you said the fix will solve my problem, I don't feel it will. The
discussion is about the crash when the standby "re"starts after the primary
vacuums and truncates a table. On the other hand, in my case, the standby
crashed during failover (not at restart), emitting a message that some WAL
record refers to an "uninitialized" page (not a non-existent page) of an
"index" (not a table).
In addition, fujii_test.sh did not reproduce the mentioned crash on
PostgreSQL 9.1.6.
I'm sorry to cause you trouble, but could you elaborate on how the fix
relates to my case?
Regards
MauMau
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
