Re: Re: [ADMIN] PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag was incorrectly set happend during repeatable vacuum
От | daveg |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: [ADMIN] PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag was incorrectly set happend during repeatable vacuum |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20110303002952.GQ26397@sonic.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: [ADMIN] PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag was incorrectly set happend during repeatable vacuum (bricklen <bricklen@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 04:20:24PM -0800, bricklen wrote: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 3:53 PM, daveg <daveg@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/4D40DDB7.1010000@credativ.com > >> (for example what if the visibility map fork's last page is overwritten?) > > > > Running on ISCSI, not nfs. But it is still a Netapp, so who knows. I'll look. > > Also, we are not seeing any of the "unexpected data beyond EOF" errors, > > just thousands per day of the PD_ALL_VISIBLE error. > > > > -dg > > FWIW, we had a couple occurrences of that message about a month ago on 9.0.2 > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2011-01/msg00887.php > > Haven't seen it since we ran a cluster-wide vacuum. We did a shutdown and restart to clear the buffer cache (but did not reboot the host) and a vacuum on all dbs in the cluster last night. That cleared it up for a couple hours, but we are still getting lots of these messages. Most of them are pg_statistic and we create and drop hundreds of thousands of temp tables daily, so there is a good chance there is a concurrancy issue. -dg -- David Gould daveg@sonic.net 510 536 1443 510 282 0869 If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: