Re: [HACKERS] Postgres 9.6 Logical and Fisical replication

Thank you for the clarification. El 5/10/2017 9:27 AM, "Robert Haas" escribió: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 5:30 PM, guedim wrote: > > I am working with Postgres9.6 with a Master/Slave cluster replication > using > > Streaming replication. > > I would like to add a new Slave server database but th

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres 9.6 Logical and Fisical replication

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 5:30 PM, guedim wrote: > I am working with Postgres9.6 with a Master/Slave cluster replication using > Streaming replication. > I would like to add a new Slave server database but this database with > logical replication . > > I tried with some configurations but it was not

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres process invoking exit resulting in sh-QUIT core

- IN/Bangalore) ; Itnal, Prakash (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Postgres process invoking exit resulting in sh-QUIT core Hi Craig, Here is bt after installing all the missing debuginfo packages. (gdb) bt #0 0x00fff7682f18 in do_lookup_x (undef_name=undef_name@entry=0xfff75ce

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres process invoking exit resulting in sh-QUIT core

tgreSQL Hackers ; T, Rasna (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) ; Itnal, Prakash (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Postgres process invoking exit resulting in sh-QUIT core On 7 July 2017 at 15:41, K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) mailto:sandhya@nokia.com>> wrote: Hi Craig, The scen

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres process invoking exit resulting in sh-QUIT core

, July 07, 2017 12:55 PM To: K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) Cc: pgsql-bugs ; PostgreSQL Hackers ; T, Rasna (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) ; Itnal, Prakash (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Postgres process invoking exit resulting in sh-QUIT core On 7 July 2017 at 15:10, K S, Sandhya

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres process invoking exit resulting in sh-QUIT core

On 7 July 2017 at 15:41, K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) < sandhya@nokia.com> wrote: > Hi Craig, > > > > The scenario is lock and unlock of the system for 30 times. During this > scenario 5 sh-QUIT core is generated. GDB of 5 core is pointing to > different locations. > > I have attached o

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres process invoking exit resulting in sh-QUIT core

On 7 July 2017 at 15:10, K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) < sandhya@nokia.com> wrote: > Hi Craig, > > > > You were right about the restore_command. > This all makes sense then. PostgreSQL sends SIGQUIT for immediate shutdown to its children. So the restore_command would get signalled too.

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres process invoking exit resulting in sh-QUIT core

On 3 Jul. 2017 23:01, "K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore)" < sandhya@nokia.com> wrote: Hi Craig, Thanks for the response. Scenario tried here is restart of the system multiple times. sh-QUIT core is generated when Postgres is invoking the shell to exit and may not be due to kernel or file s

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres process invoking exit resulting in sh-QUIT core

g; pgsql-b...@postgresql.org; T, Rasna (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) ; Itnal, Prakash (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Postgres process invoking exit resulting in sh-QUIT core On 30 June 2017 at 17:41, K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) wrote: > When we checked the process listing during the

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres process invoking exit resulting in sh-QUIT core

On 30 June 2017 at 17:41, K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) wrote: > When we checked the process listing during the time of core generation, we > found Postgres startup process is invoking “sh -c exit 1”: > 4518 9249 0.1 0.0 155964 2036 ?Ss 15:05 0:00 postgres: > startup pro

Re: [HACKERS] postgres 9.6.2 update breakage

On 5/15/17 02:48, Roel Janssen wrote: > Ah yes, I see the point. The problem here is that when new features are > added to PostgreSQL, and you rely upon them in your database schemas, > downgrading will most likely cause loss of information. > > Maybe we need a wrapper script that also makes a du

Re: [HACKERS] postgres 9.6.2 update breakage

Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes: > Roel Janssen writes: > >> So, it would be something like: >> postgres pg_upgrade \ >> ... > > It's great to have a recipe `that works', so thanks! > > However, whether or not we automate this, I cannot help to wonder if > we should support downgrading -- at least to th

Re: [HACKERS] postgres 9.6.2 update breakage

Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes: > Roel Janssen writes: > >> So, it would be something like: >> postgres pg_upgrade \ >> ... > > It's great to have a recipe `that works', so thanks! > > However, whether or not we automate this, I cannot help to wonder if > we should support downgrading -- at least to the

Re: [HACKERS] postgres 9.6.2 update breakage

Roel Janssen writes: > So, it would be something like: > postgres pg_upgrade \ > ... It's great to have a recipe `that works', so thanks! However, whether or not we automate this, I cannot help to wonder if we should support downgrading -- at least to the previous version in this case? If I'm n

[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] postgres 1 个(共 2 个) can pg 9.6 vacuum freeze skip page on index?

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:33 AM, xu jian wrote: > Hello, > >Please execute me if I am using the wrong mailing list, but I ask the > question in pgsql-admin, looks like no one know the answer. > > > we upgraded our pg db to 9.6, as we know, pg9.6 doesn't need full table scan > in vacuum free

Re: [HACKERS] postgres 9.3 postgres_fdw ::LOG: could not receive data from client: Connection reset by peer

Local server log has the line and remote table log is empty (it is configured for minimum warning and when I produce one it appears in log OK) And I have new details - it happens on some additional environments - not constantly. Some hours it happens every time, then just stops appearing: postgres@

Re: [HACKERS] postgres 9.3 postgres_fdw ::LOG: could not receive data from client: Connection reset by peer

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 6:32 AM, Vladimir Svedov wrote: > Hi, > I have this question. Looked for a help on http://dba.stackexchange.com/ > No success. > Maybe you can answer?.. > Thank you in advance > > > "FOREIGN_TABLE" created with postgres_fdw. LOCAL_TABLE is just a local > table... > > Sympt

Re: [HACKERS] postgres 9.3 postgres_fdw ::LOG: could not receive data from client: Connection reset by peer

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 3:08 AM, Vladimir Svedov wrote: > No, I select from it OK. > The bug(?) is that when I do it in oppened psql session it produces no log, > and when I run same select as psql -c "SELECT..." it gives the above OK, that's pretty weird. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://ww

Re: [HACKERS] postgres 9.3 postgres_fdw ::LOG: could not receive data from client: Connection reset by peer

No, I select from it OK. The bug(?) is that when I do it in oppened psql session it produces no log, and when I run same select as psql -c "SELECT..." it gives the above 2016-11-22 20:18 GMT+00:00 Robert Haas : > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Vladimir Svedov > wrote: > > Hi, > > Sorry - tried

Re: [HACKERS] postgres 9.3 postgres_fdw ::LOG: could not receive data from client: Connection reset by peer

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Vladimir Svedov wrote: > Hi, > Sorry - tried to reproduce on other machine and gather all statements. And > failed > Installed 9.3 (which has those symptoms) and still can't reproduce. > Must be platform specific, not version Probably the foreign server isn't conf

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres abort found in 9.3.11

test bed for people to try. Regards, Sandhya -Original Message- From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 1:47 AM To: K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Itnal, Prakash (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) Subject: Re: [HACKERS

Re: [HACKERS] postgres 9.3 postgres_fdw ::LOG: could not receive data from client: Connection reset by peer

Hi, Sorry - tried to reproduce on other machine and gather all statements. And failed Installed 9.3 (which has those symptoms) and still can't reproduce. Must be platform specific, not version 2016-11-21 21:58 GMT+00:00 Kevin Grittner : > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Vladimir Svedov > wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] postgres 9.3 postgres_fdw ::LOG: could not receive data from client: Connection reset by peer

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Vladimir Svedov wrote: > I have this question. Looked for a help on http://dba.stackexchange.com/ > No success. A link to the actual question would be appreciated. > "FOREIGN_TABLE" created with postgres_fdw. LOCAL_TABLE is just a local > table... > > Symptoms:

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres abort found in 9.3.11

"K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore)" writes: > As suggested by you, we upgraded the postgres to version 9.3.14. Also we > removed all the patches we had applied before. But the issue is still > observed in the latest version as well. Can you make a test case for other people to try?

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres abort found in 9.3.11

] Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 1:29 AM To: K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Itnal, Prakash (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Postgres abort found in 9.3.11 "K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore)" writes: > We tried to replicate

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres abort found in 9.3.11

"K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore)" writes: > We tried to replicate the scenario without our patch(exiting postmaster) and > still we were able to see the issue. > Same error was seen this time as well. > node-0 postgres[8243]: [1-2] HINT: Is another postmaster already running on > port 5433

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres abort found in 9.3.11

!!! Sandhya -Original Message- From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 5:04 PM To: K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Itnal, Prakash (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Postgres abort found in 9.3.11 "K S, Sa

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres abort found in 9.3.11

; Thanks in advance!!! Sandhya -Original Message- From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 7:19 PM To: K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Itnal, Prakash (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Postgres abort

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres abort found in 9.3.11

"K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore)" writes: > I was able to find a patch file where there is a call to ExitPostmaster() in > postmaster.c . > @@ -3081,6 +3081,11 @@ > shmem_exit(1); > reset_shared(PostPortNumber); > + /* recovery termination */ > + ereport(FATAL,

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres abort found in 9.3.11

; Itnal, Prakash (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Postgres abort found in 9.3.11 "K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore)" writes: > During the server restart, we are getting postgres crash with sigabrt. No > other operation being performed. > Attached the backtrace. W

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres abort found in 9.3.11

"K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore)" writes: > Our setup is a hot-standby architecture. This crash is occurring only on > stand-by node. Postgres continues to run without any issues on active node. > Postmaster is waiting for a start and is throwing this message. > Aug 22 11:44:21.462555 info n

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres abort found in 9.3.11

"K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore)" writes: > During the server restart, we are getting postgres crash with sigabrt. No > other operation being performed. > Attached the backtrace. What shows up in the postmaster log? > The occurrence is occasional. The issue is seen once in 30~50 times. Doe

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres 9.6 scariest patch tournament

This is raw, in case anyone wants to look more closely. alvherre=# select level, count(*), patch, subject from scary left join commits on patch = sha1 group by level, patch, subject order by level asc, count(*) desc; ┌───┬───┬──

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres 9.6 scariest patch tournament

Alvaro Herrera wrote: > "Parallel Query" got many mentions; some of them were specific commits > (such as "parallel infrastructure", "parallel joins", "parallel > aggregates") and others were more generic. For the generic mentions I > just chose a few of the most salient patches, but didn't inclu

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres 9.6 scariest patch tournament

Noah Misch wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 03:37:21PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > The RMT will publish aggregate, unattributed results after the poll > > closes. Here are some more detailed results. We got 15 valid replies. One person voted twice, mentioning the same patches both times in

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres 9.6 scariest patch tournament

On 05/04/2016 06:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 03:37:21PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> The RMT will publish aggregate, unattributed results after the poll >>> closes. >> >> Thanks for voting. Join me in congratulating

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres 9.6 scariest patch tournament

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 03:37:21PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> The RMT will publish aggregate, unattributed results after the poll >> closes. > > Thanks for voting. Join me in congratulating our top finishers: > > 1. fd31cd2 Dont vacuum all-

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres 9.6 scariest patch tournament

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 03:37:21PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > The RMT will publish aggregate, unattributed results after the poll > closes. Thanks for voting. Join me in congratulating our top finishers: 1. fd31cd2 Dont vacuum all-frozen pages. 2. "Parallel Query" 3(tie). 3fc6e2d Make the up

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres 9.6 scariest patch tournament

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 03:37:21PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > The PostgreSQL Project needs you! > > The Release Management Team would like your input regarding the patch or > patches which, in your opinion, are the most likely sources of major > bugs or instabilities in PostgreSQL 9.6. > > Pl

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres 9.6 scariest patch tournament

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 04:06:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > Peter Geoghegan wrote: > >> I would have appreciated more scope to say how confident I am in > >> my prediction, and how scary in absolute terms I consider the > >> scariest patches to be. > > > It was purposef

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres 9.6 scariest patch tournament

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > This guy reads my mind. Where's my tinfoil hat? Heh. Well, I'm generally not in favor of communicating concerns without an obligation to defend them, but it could work well in tiny doses. Offering hackers a low-risk way to take a position

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres 9.6 scariest patch tournament

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> I would have appreciated more scope to say how confident I am in my >> prediction, and how scary in absolute terms I consider the scariest >> patches to be. > It was purposefully ambiguous. Maybe it should have been stated > explicitely. I was

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres 9.6 scariest patch tournament

Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Josh berkus wrote: > > We should send the owner of the scariest patch something as a prize. > > Maybe a plastic skeleton or something ... > > I think it was a good idea to call it the scariest patch rather than > something more severe soun

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres 9.6 scariest patch tournament

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Josh berkus wrote: > We should send the owner of the scariest patch something as a prize. > Maybe a plastic skeleton or something ... I think it was a good idea to call it the scariest patch rather than something more severe sounding. Having the poll only be half-

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres 9.6 scariest patch tournament

On 04/18/2016 04:22 PM, Josh berkus wrote: > > We should send the owner of the scariest patch something as a prize. > Maybe a plastic skeleton or something ... A mouse. -Chap -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://ww

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres 9.6 scariest patch tournament

On 04/18/2016 11:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Hackers, lurkers, > > The PostgreSQL Project needs you! > > The Release Management Team would like your input regarding the patch or > patches which, in your opinion, are the most likely sources of major > bugs or instabilities in PostgreSQL 9.6. >

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres 9.6 scariest patch tournament

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 15:37:21 -0300 Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Hackers, lurkers, > > The PostgreSQL Project needs you! > > The Release Management Team would like your input regarding the patch or > patches which, in your opinion, are the most likely sources of major > bugs or instabilities in Postg

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Michael Paquier writes: > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> After poking around a bit more, I propose the attached patch. I've > >> checked that this is happy with an EXEC_BACKEND Unix build, but I'm not > >> able to tes

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

Michael Paquier writes: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> After poking around a bit more, I propose the attached patch. I've >> checked that this is happy with an EXEC_BACKEND Unix build, but I'm not >> able to test it on Windows ... would somebody do that? > Looking at the

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 10/12/2015 04:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> BTW, it appears from this that Cygwin builds have been broken right along >> in a different way: according to the code in sysv_shmem's >> PGSharedMemoryReAttach, Cygwin does cause a re-attach to occur, which we >> were not undoing

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On 10/12/2015 04:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: This is kind of a mess :-(. But it does look like what we want is for SubPostmasterMain to do more than nothing when it chooses not to reattach. Probably that should include resetting UsedShmemSegAddr to NULL, as well as closing the handle. A

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> This is kind of a mess :-(. But it does look like what we want is >> for SubPostmasterMain to do more than nothing when it chooses not to >> reattach. Probably that should include resetting UsedShmemSegAddr to >> NULL, as well as clo

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

Hello Tom! On Пн, 2015-10-12 at 16:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > This is kind of a mess :-(.  But it does look like what we want is > > for SubPostmasterMain to do more than nothing when it chooses not > > to > > reattach.  Probably that should include resetting UsedShmemSegAddr > > to >

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

I wrote: > This is kind of a mess :-(. But it does look like what we want is > for SubPostmasterMain to do more than nothing when it chooses not to > reattach. Probably that should include resetting UsedShmemSegAddr to > NULL, as well as closing the handle. After poking around a bit more, I prop

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

I wrote: > Actually, now that I look at it, it's even more obvious that this is the > wrong thing because *all the subprocess types in question already call > PGSharedMemoryDetach*. Ah, scratch that: in most of them, the call is in #ifndef EXEC_BACKEND stanzas. The exception is bgworker start for

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I wrote: > > Andres Freund writes: > >> Right. But that doesn't mean it's right to call PGSharedMemoryDetach() > >> without other changes as done in Michael's proposed patch? That'll do an > >> UnmapViewOfFile() which'll fail because nothing i

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

I wrote: > Andres Freund writes: >> Right. But that doesn't mean it's right to call PGSharedMemoryDetach() >> without other changes as done in Michael's proposed patch? That'll do an >> UnmapViewOfFile() which'll fail because nothing i mapped, but still not >> close UsedShmemSegID? > Ah, right, I

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

Andres Freund writes: > Right. But that doesn't mean it's right to call PGSharedMemoryDetach() > without other changes as done in Michael's proposed patch? That'll do an > UnmapViewOfFile() which'll fail because nothing i mapped, but still not > close UsedShmemSegID? Ah, right, I'd not noticed th

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On 2015-10-12 10:04:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2015-10-12 21:38:12 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> Actually, doesn't this apply as well to the archiver and the pgstat > >> collector? > > > As mentioned above? The difference is that the archiver et al get killed >

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

Oleg Bartunov writes: > Assuming the problem will be fixed, should we release Beta2 soon ? This bug has existed since we had native Windows support. It's entirely immaterial for beta purposes, and I have a hard time thinking it's critical enough to justify a short release cycle for the back bran

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

Andres Freund writes: > On 2015-10-12 21:38:12 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Actually, doesn't this apply as well to the archiver and the pgstat >> collector? > As mentioned above? The difference is that the archiver et al get killed > by postmaster during a PANIC restart thus don't present th

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Dmitry Vasilyev wrote: > Hello, Amit! > > On Пн, 2015-10-12 at 11:25 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > Magnus Hagander writes: > > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> I'm a bit suspiciou

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

Hello, Amit! On Пн, 2015-10-12 at 11:25 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > Magnus Hagander writes: > > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Tom Lane > wrote: > > >> I'm a bit suspicious that we may have leaked a handle to the > shared > > >> memory

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On 2015-10-12 21:38:12 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> It feels wrong to do this in syslogger.c - I mean it's not the only > >> process that's not attached to shared memory. Sure, the others get > >> killed, but nonetheless... > > > > > > +1. It feels like we're setting our selves up for repeati

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> >> On 2015-10-12 11:25:35 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >> > /* >> > + * Close the shared memory handle as the syslogger doesn't need to >> > + * attach to it. For

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I could easily reproduce the issue if logging collector is on and even if > > we try to increase the loop count or sleep time i

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-10-12 11:25:35 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > /* > > + * Close the shared memory handle as the syslogger doesn't need to > > + * attach to it. For EXEC_BACKEND case, the shared memory handle > > + * is inherited

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On 2015-10-12 11:25:35 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > /* > + * Close the shared memory handle as the syslogger doesn't need to > + * attach to it. For EXEC_BACKEND case, the shared memory handle > + * is inherited by all postmaster child processes irrespective of > + * wheth

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I could easily reproduce the issue if logging collector is on and even if > we try to increase the loop count or sleep time in PGSharedMemoryCreate(), > it doesn't change the situation as the

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Magnus Hagander writes: > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I'm a bit suspicious that we may have leaked a handle to the shared > >> memory block someplace, for example. That would explain why this > >> symptom is visibl

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Ali Akbar wrote: >> > C:\Windows\system32>taskkill /F /PID 2080 >> > SUCCESS: The process with PID 2080 has been terminated. >> >> taskkill /f *forcefully* terminates the process targeted [1]. Isn't >> th

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

Magnus Hagander writes: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm a bit suspicious that we may have leaked a handle to the shared >> memory block someplace, for example. That would explain why this >> symptom is visible now when it was not in 2009. Or maybe it's dependent >> on

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan writes: > > Amit's proposals elsewhere to increase the shmem timeout and increase > > logging seem reasonable. > > I'm back to the position I had in the previous thread, which is that > we don't really understand why any delay is

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 10/11/2015 05:58 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Michael Paquier < >> michael.paqu...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Ali Akbar >

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

Andrew Dunstan writes: > Amit's proposals elsewhere to increase the shmem timeout and increase > logging seem reasonable. I'm back to the position I had in the previous thread, which is that we don't really understand why any delay is needed here at all, and we ought to try to remedy that lack r

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On 10/11/2015 05:58 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Michael Paquier mailto:michael.paqu...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Ali Akbar mailto:the.ap...@gmail.com>> wrote: > C:\Windows\system32>taskkill /F /PID 2080 > SUCCESS: The pr

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Ali Akbar wrote: > > C:\Windows\system32>taskkill /F /PID 2080 > > SUCCESS: The process with PID 2080 has been terminated. > > taskkill /f *forcefully* terminates the process targeted [1]. Isn't > that equ

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Dmitry Vasilyev writes: > > The log you can see bellow: > > ... > > 2015-10-10 19:00:32 AST DEBUG: cleaning up dynamic shared memory control segment with ID 851401618 > > 2015-10-10 19:00:32 AST DEBUG: invoking IpcMemoryCreate(size=290095104)

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

Dmitry Vasilyev writes: > On Сб, 2015-10-10 at 10:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> and (b) you still haven't convinced me that you had an actual service >> stop, and not just that the recovery time was longer than psql would >> wait before retrying the connection. > The log you can see bellow: > ..

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Ali Akbar wrote: > C:\Windows\system32>taskkill /F /PID 2080 > SUCCESS: The process with PID 2080 has been terminated. taskkill /f *forcefully* terminates the process targeted [1]. Isn't that equivalent to a kill -9? If you headshot a backend process on Linux with

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

Greetings, 2015-10-11 0:18 GMT+07:00 Pavel Stehule : > > 2015-10-10 18:04 GMT+02:00 Dmitry Vasilyev : > >> >> On Сб, 2015-10-10 at 10:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> > Dmitry Vasilyev writes: >> > > I have written, what service stopped. This action is repeatable. >> > > You can run command 'psql -c

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

2015-10-10 18:04 GMT+02:00 Dmitry Vasilyev : > Hello Tom! > > On Сб, 2015-10-10 at 10:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Dmitry Vasilyev writes: > > > I have written, what service stopped. This action is repeatable. > > > You can run command 'psql -c "do $$ unpack p,1x8 $$ language > > > plperlu;"' >

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

Hello Tom! On Сб, 2015-10-10 at 10:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Dmitry Vasilyev writes: > > I have written, what service stopped. This action is repeatable. > > You can run command 'psql -c "do $$ unpack p,1x8 $$ language > > plperlu;"' > > and after this windows service will stop. > > Well, (a)

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

Dmitry Vasilyev writes: > I have written, what service stopped. This action is repeatable. > You can run command 'psql -c "do $$ unpack p,1x8 $$ language plperlu;"' > and after this windows service will stop. Well, (a) that probably means that your plperl installation is broken, and (b) you still

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

I have written, what service stopped. This action is repeatable. You can run command 'psql -c "do $$ unpack p,1x8 $$ language plperlu;"' and after this windows service will stop.  On Сб, 2015-10-10 at 10:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Dmitry Va

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

Robert Haas writes: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Dmitry Vasilyev >> postgres=# select 1; >> server closed the connection unexpectedly >> This probably means the server terminated abnormally >> before or while processing the request. >> The connection to the server was lost. Attempting reset:

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Dmitry Vasilyev wrote: > I’ve started PostgreSQL server on Windows and then I kill client > backend’s process by taskkill the service was stopped: > > postgres=# select pg_backend_pid(); > pg_backend_pid > >1976 > > postgres=# \! taskki

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

This code stoped server too: postgres=# do $$ unpack p,1x8 $$ language plperlu; server closed the connection unexpectedly This probably means the server terminated abnormally before or while processing the request. The connection to the server was lost. Attempting reset: Failed. !>

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client backend on Windows

Hello Dmitry > -Original Message- > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Dmitry Vasilyev > Sent: Freitag, 9. Oktober 2015 11:52 > To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: [HACKERS] Postgres service stops when I kill client

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres - BDR issue

On 22 September 2015 at 23:52, Rahul Goel wrote: > Hi > > I am facing the below issue in setting up BDR: Hi. Please direct questions about using and setting up BDR to pgsql-general, not pgsql-hackers. Thanks. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Developme

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres GSSAPI Encryption

Robbie, * Robbie Harwood (rharw...@redhat.com) wrote: > I've coded up the GSSAPI encryption and is on my github[0]. It's > missing a number of things before merge, including proper error > handling, correct ACL behavior (by and large, it currently doesn't > respect hba.conf), and exposing configu

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres GSSAPI Encryption

Robbie Harwood writes: > Stephen Frost writes: > >> Robbie, >> >> * Robbie Harwood (rharw...@redhat.com) wrote: >> >>> We'd I think also want a new kind of HBA entry (probably something along >>> the lines of `hostgss` to contrast with `hostssl`), but I'm not sure >>> what we'd want to do for th

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres and TLSv1.2

On 22/05/15 10:45, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: I think this was probably a mistake. I suggest that in the back branches we should leave the server alone (rejecting SSL v3 might annoy somebody using old non-libpq clients) but adjust libpq to use SSLv23_method() plus SSL_OP_NO_SSLv2 | SSL_OP_NO_SSLv

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres and TLSv1.2

I wrote: > I think this was probably a mistake. I suggest that in the back branches > we should leave the server alone (rejecting SSL v3 might annoy somebody > using old non-libpq clients) but adjust libpq to use SSLv23_method() plus > SSL_OP_NO_SSLv2 | SSL_OP_NO_SSLv3. IOW, back-patch 820f08cabd

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres and TLSv1.2

I wrote: > libpq versions before 9.4 will only accept TLSv1 exactly. In 9.4 it > should negotiate the highest TLS version supported by both server and > client. > I don't recall why we didn't back-patch that change, probably excessive > concern for backwards compatibility ... but anyway, AFAICS f

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres and TLSv1.2

On 22/05/15 02:06, Tom Lane wrote: Jan Bilek writes: We are trying to setup Postgres with TLSv1.2 (undergoing PA:DSS audit), but getting a bit stuck there with Postgres reporting “could not accept SSL connection: no shared cipher�. This is obviously an internal OpenSSL message, but worryin

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres and TLSv1.2

Jan Bilek writes: > We are trying to setup Postgres with TLSv1.2 (undergoing PA:DSS audit), > but getting a bit stuck there with Postgres reporting “could not accept > SSL connection: no shared cipher”. This is obviously an internal OpenSSL > message, but worrying part is that we've had thi

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres GSSAPI Encryption

Stephen Frost writes: > Robbie, > > * Robbie Harwood (rharw...@redhat.com) wrote: > >> We'd I think also want a new kind of HBA entry (probably something along >> the lines of `hostgss` to contrast with `hostssl`), but I'm not sure >> what we'd want to do for the counterpart of `hostnossl` (`host

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres GSSAPI Encryption

Robbie, * Robbie Harwood (rharw...@redhat.com) wrote: > Today, there exists GSSAPI authentication support in Postgres. I plan > to extend this work to include encryption as well, but wanted to get > your input on that first since you've probably thought about this > already. Great! > From what

Re: [HACKERS] Postgres TR for missing chunk

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 4:18 AM, M Tarkeshwar Rao wrote: > We are facing this issue and want to analyse this through logging. > can you please share a sample Postgres config file to enable max logging with > syslog support? > > What should be the debug level so that I can capture the failure info

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >