On 02.11.2010 00:47, Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Stark writes:
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
Yes, indeed there is a corner-case bug when you try to stream the very first
WAL segment, with log==seg==0.
This smells very much like
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.
Greg Stark writes:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
>> Yes, indeed there is a corner-case bug when you try to stream the very first
>> WAL segment, with log==seg==0.
> This smells very much like
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.postgresql.devel.general/13705
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> Yes, indeed there is a corner-case bug when you try to stream the very first
> WAL segment, with log==seg==0.
This smells very much like
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.postgresql.devel.general/137052
I wonder if there's some de
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Yes, indeed there is a corner-case bug when you try to stream the very
first WAL segment, with log==seg==0.
I confirmed that the bug exists in only this case by taking my problem
install and doing this:
psql -d postgres -c "checkpoint; select pg_switch_xlog();"
To
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> Committed that. Thanks for the report, both of you. I'm not subscribed to
> pgsql-admin which is why I didn't see Matt's original report.
Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Softw
On 01.11.2010 09:37, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 31.10.2010 23:31, Greg Smith wrote:
LOG: replication connection authorized: user=rep host=127.0.0.1
port=52571
FATAL: requested WAL segment 0001 has already been
removed
Which is confusing because that file is certainly on th
On 31.10.2010 23:31, Greg Smith wrote:
LOG: replication connection authorized: user=rep host=127.0.0.1 port=52571
FATAL: requested WAL segment 0001 has already been
removed
Which is confusing because that file is certainly on the master still,
and hasn't even been considered
On 01.11.2010 05:21, Robert Haas wrote:
There seem to be two cases in the code that can generate that error.
One, attempting to open the file returns ENOENT. Two, after the data
has been read, the last-removed position returned by
XLogGetLastRemoved precedes the data we think we just read, imply
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Which is confusing because that file is certainly on the master still, and
> hasn't even been considered archived yet much less removed:
>
> [mas...@pyramid pg_log]$ ls -l $PGDATA/pg_xlog
> -rw--- 1 master master 16777216 Oct 31 16:29 00
