Tatsuo Ishii <[email protected]> writes:
> While looking at pgpool-II user's complain, I see weired thing in the
> PostgreSQL log.
> Jan 14 10:04:57 dayrhegrdp005 postgres[25223]: [4559-1] LOG: 00000:
> statement: PREPARE pgpool19528 AS SELECT count(*) from (SELECT
> has_function_privilege('measure',
> Jan 14 10:04:57 dayrhegrdp005 postgres[25223]: [4559-2]
> 'pgpool_regclass(cstring)', 'execute') WHERE EXISTS(SELECT * FROM
> pg_catalog.pg_proc AS p WHERE p.proname = 'pgpool_regclass'))
> Jan 14 10:04:57 dayrhegrdp005 postgres[25223]: [4559-3] AS s
> Jan 14 10:04:57 dayrhegrdp005 postgres[25223]: [4559-4] LOCATION:
> exec_parse_message, postgres.c:1159
> Jan 14 10:04:57 dayrhegrdp005 postgres[25223]: [4560-1] LOG: 00000:
> statement: <BIND> pgpool19528
> Jan 14 10:04:57 dayrhegrdp005 postgres[25223]: [4560-2] LOCATION:
> exec_bind_message, postgres.c:1460
> Jan 14 10:04:57 dayrhegrdp005 postgres[25223]: [4561-1] ERROR: 34000: portal
> "pgpool19528" does not exist
> Jan 14 10:04:57 dayrhegrdp005 postgres[25223]: [4561-2] LOCATION:
> exec_execute_message, postgres.c:1669
> The portal "portal19528" was created by a bind message (pgpool-II uses
> the identical name as the named statement) then subsequent
> exec_bind_message failed to find the portal. Could it ever happen?
I'm confused too. Surely there are lots of ways a portal could get
dropped, but most of them would have left traces in the postmaster log,
I'd think, since you evidently have log_statement == LOGSTMT_ALL.
What was log_min_messages set to?
> According to the user, PostgreSQL version is 8.1.23. Could it be a
> source of problem?
However, it's pretty hard to get excited about debugging something
that happened in a release branch that's been out of support for
more than three years.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
