On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 06:25:23PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I thought about an error exit from client authentication, and that's a
somewhat appealing explanation, but I can't quite see why we wouldn't
clean up there the same as anywhere else. The
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 07:39:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
daveg da...@sonic.net writes:
Also, this is very intermittant, we have seen it only in recent months
on both 8.4.7 and 9.0.4 after years of no problems. Lately we see it what
feels like a few times a month. Possibly some new
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 09:02:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
daveg da...@sonic.net writes:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 07:39:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
BTW ... what were the last versions you were running on which you had
*not* seen the problem? (Just wondering about the possibility that we
Postgresql 9.0.4 has the timezone:
America/Blanc-Sablon
However other sources seem to spell this with an underscore instead of dash:
America/Blanc_Sablon
It appears that beside 'America/Blanc_Sablon', other multi-word timezones
are spelled with underscore. For example:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:46:14AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 12.01.2011 06:21, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Maxim Bogukmaxim.bo...@gmail.com wrote:
While I trying create reproducible test case for BUG #5798 I
encountered very strange effect on two of my
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 07:43:39PM -0600, David Christensen wrote:
On Feb 28, 2011, at 3:28 PM, daveg wrote:
Anything new on this? I'm seeing at on one of my clients production boxes.
Also, what is the significance, ie what is the risk or damage potential if
this flag is set incorrectly
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 12:00:54AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 28.02.2011 23:28, daveg wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:46:14AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
We'll likely need to go back and forth a few times with various
debugging patches until we get to the heart
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 01:20:43PM -0800, daveg wrote:
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 12:00:54AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 28.02.2011 23:28, daveg wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:46:14AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
We'll likely need to go back and forth a few times with various
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 06:45:13PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from daveg's message of mié mar 02 18:30:34 -0300 2011:
After a restart and vacuum of all dbs with no other activity things were
quiet for a couple hours and then we started seeing these PD_ALL_VISIBLE
messages
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 04:20:24PM -0800, bricklen wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 3:53 PM, daveg da...@sonic.net wrote:
Postgresql version is 8.4.4.
I don't see how this could be related, but since you're running on NFS,
maybe it is, somehow:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 08:40:37AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 1:43 AM, David Christensen da...@endpoint.com
wrote:
Was this cluster upgraded to 8.4.4 from 8.4.0? It sounds to me like a
known bug
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 10:16:29AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 03.03.2011 09:12, daveg wrote:
Question: what would be the consequence of simply patching out the setting
of this flag? Assuming that the incorrect PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag is the only
problem (big assumption perhaps
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 09:04:04AM -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 03.03.2011 09:12, daveg wrote:
Question: what would be the consequence of simply patching out the setting
of this flag
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 05:52:29PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Hmm, if these all came from the same database, then it looks OldestXmin
has moved backwards. That would explain the warnings. First one vacuum
determines that all the tuples are visible to everyone and sets the
flag. Then
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 10:00:01AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 08.03.2011 04:07, Greg Stark wrote:
Well from that log you definitely have OldestXmin going backwards. And
not by a little bit either. at 6:33 it set the all_visible flag and
then at 7:01 it was almost 1.3 million
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 10:37:24AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 08.03.2011 10:00, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Another idea is to give up on the warning when it appears that
oldestxmin has moved backwards, and assume that it's actually fine. We
could still warn in other cases where the
101 - 116 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
