Re: Database OID xxxxx now seems to belong to "foo"
От | Richard Huxton |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Database OID xxxxx now seems to belong to "foo" |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 47D6ABA8.8060402@archonet.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Database OID xxxxx now seems to belong to "foo" (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote: > Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com> writes: >> Gauthier, Dave wrote: >>>> Trying (and failing) to attach to my DBs. Getting... >>>> database "foo_standby" has disappeared form pg_database >>>> DETAIL: Database OID 2323523 now seems to belong to "foo" > >> Hmm - if a shutdown + restart fixed it, I'm wondering if it wasn't just >> a long-lived connection remembering where 2323523 used to point to. > > No, it's the "flat file" copy of pg_database that's supplying that > number, and the reason the restart fixed it is that the flat file > is forcibly rebuilt during a restart. What's not quite clear is > why the flat file was wrong. Ah, that makes sense (well, the first part). > We've seen this type of failure reported from the field before, > and as far as I recall the triggering condition was transaction ID > wraparound due to lack of vacuuming ... but haven't consumed enough > caffeine this morning to remember details. Be interesting to find out - I can't quite imagine how a transaction ID problem would cause this. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: