I Karl,

MySQL. As per config variables:
version  5.7.23-log
version comment MySQL Community Server (GPL)

which file should I enable logging/debugging?

Thanks!

El lun., 22 oct. 2018 a las 21:36, Karl Wright (<[email protected]>)
escribió:

> Hi Gustavo,
>
> I have seen this error before; it is apparently due to the database
> failing to properly gate transactions and behave according to the
> concurrency model selected for a transaction.  We have a debugging setting
> you can configure which logs the needed information so that forensics get
> dumped, and when they do, it's apparent what is happening.
>
> Note well that I have never been able to make this problem appear here, so
> I suspect that the issue is related to network latency or some other
> external factor I cannot easily reproduce.
>
> Just so I know -- what database is this?  The place where we've seen this
> is postgresql; later versions of MySql do not seem to have an issue.
>
> Thanks,
> Karl
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 1:44 PM Gustavo Beneitez <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Karl,
>>
>> lately we are facing job status problems. After a few minutes the job
>> ends suddenly, always the same way:
>>
>> Error: Unexpected jobqueue status - record id 1539339908660, expecting
>> active status, saw 2
>> Error: Unexpected jobqueue status - record id 1539291541171, expecting
>> active status, saw 2
>> Error: Unexpected jobqueue status - record id 1539294182173, expecting
>> active status, saw 2
>> Error: Unexpected jobqueue status - record id 1539338949797, expecting
>> active status, saw 2
>>
>> I did some investigations and a select to the database after the error
>> appeared and BEFORE rerunning the job:
>>
>> SELECT * FROM `jobqueue` WHERE id = 1539336459053 and jobid =
>> 1539269973731
>>
>>
>> it returned status = 'G'
>>
>>
>> After the run was repeated, it finished OK  and same query returned
>> status = 'C'.
>>
>> I don't understand much of the "active" workers but it seems the item is
>> processed twice. Do you have an idea about what we should investigate?
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance!
>>
>

Reply via email to