Обсуждение: mail to pgsql-general lost?
hi,
mailed some time ago to pgsql-general, and while I see that it was
delivered to postgresql.org servers, I didn't get it back from list, and
I don't see it in archive - while I do see other mails on the list.
any chance someone could look what has happened to it:
times are in CEST timezone, so it was ~ 1 hour ago.
2012-08-15 22:44:42 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA <= depesz@depesz.com H=andy.depesz.com (depesz.com) [88.198.47.100] P=esmtpa
A=login:depesz@depesz.comS=63911 id=20120815204441.GA30152@depesz.com T="Problem with connection spikes, and slow, very
slow,io access"
2012-08-15 22:44:43 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA magus.postgresql.org [2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29] Network is unreachable
2012-08-15 22:44:51 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA => pgsql-general@postgresql.org R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp H=makus.postgresql.org
[98.129.198.125]
2012-08-15 22:44:51 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA Completed
Best regards,
depesz
--
The best thing about modern society is how easy it is to avoid contact with it.
http://depesz.com/
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:00 AM, hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@depesz.com> wrote: > hi, > mailed some time ago to pgsql-general, and while I see that it was > delivered to postgresql.org servers, I didn't get it back from list, and > I don't see it in archive - while I do see other mails on the list. > > any chance someone could look what has happened to it: > > times are in CEST timezone, so it was ~ 1 hour ago. > > 2012-08-15 22:44:42 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA <= depesz@depesz.com H=andy.depesz.com (depesz.com) [88.198.47.100] P=esmtpa A=login:depesz@depesz.comS=63911 id=20120815204441.GA30152@depesz.com T="Problem with connection spikes, and slow, very slow,io access" > 2012-08-15 22:44:43 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA magus.postgresql.org [2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29] Network is unreachable > 2012-08-15 22:44:51 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA => pgsql-general@postgresql.org R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp H=makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125] > 2012-08-15 22:44:51 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA Completed This is hte message with messageid being delivered into majordomo. Unfortunately, majordomo has no logging at all that I know of. But Alvaro has sometimes been able to track down where messages are as they go through there :) Alvaro? (our local session id on the majordomo server is 1T1kSS-0000A1-Fh) -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of mié ago 15 18:09:13 -0400 2012: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:00 AM, hubert depesz lubaczewski > <depesz@depesz.com> wrote: > > hi, > > mailed some time ago to pgsql-general, and while I see that it was > > delivered to postgresql.org servers, I didn't get it back from list, and > > I don't see it in archive - while I do see other mails on the list. > > > > any chance someone could look what has happened to it: > > > > times are in CEST timezone, so it was ~ 1 hour ago. > > > > 2012-08-15 22:44:42 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA <= depesz@depesz.com H=andy.depesz.com (depesz.com) [88.198.47.100] P=esmtpa A=login:depesz@depesz.comS=63911 id=20120815204441.GA30152@depesz.com T="Problem with connection spikes, and slow, very slow,io access" > > 2012-08-15 22:44:43 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA magus.postgresql.org [2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29] Network is unreachable > > 2012-08-15 22:44:51 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA => pgsql-general@postgresql.org R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp H=makus.postgresql.org[98.129.198.125] > > 2012-08-15 22:44:51 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA Completed > > > This is hte message with messageid being delivered into majordomo. > Unfortunately, majordomo has no logging at all that I know of. But > Alvaro has sometimes been able to track down where messages are as > they go through there :) Alvaro? (our local session id on the > majordomo server is 1T1kSS-0000A1-Fh) What do you mean majordomo has no logging? It sure does. In fact, we have lots of info about that email just on Mj2 alone, without even have to look at Exim logs: $ $MJSHCMD report-full pgsql-general 2d post | less ... post pgsql-general depesz@depesz.com fail 20:44 (post to pgsql-general) resend 690058653d9b25bcb737038d12207678e6ef1ea31.509 ... post pgsql-general depesz@depesz.com succeed 09:42 (post to pgsql-general) resend 6fbeb650df71e791ac2e10a5b67505eccfb71f4e163.296 ... $ $MJSHCMD sessioninfo 690058653d9b25bcb737038d12207678e6ef1ea3 The following information was recorded for session number 690058653d9b25bcb737038d12207678e6ef1ea3. Source: resend PID: 678 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([98.129.198.125]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from<depesz@depesz.com>) id 1T1kSS-0000A1-Fh for pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:44:53+0000 Received: from andy.depesz.com ([88.198.47.100] helo=depesz.com) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <depesz@depesz.com>) id 1T1kSL-0001py-7x for pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Aug 201220:44:51 +0000 Received: from andy.depesz.com ([88.198.47.100] helo=depesz.com) by depesz.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from<depesz@depesz.com>) id 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA for pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:44:42+0200 Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:44:42 +0200 From: hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@depesz.com> Sender: depesz@depesz.com To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Problem with connection spikes, and slow, very slow, io access Message-ID: <20120815204441.GA30152@depesz.com> Reply-To: depesz@depesz.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) 0: (post to pgsql-general) So we know it *failed*, though we don't know *why* ... it does seem that Majordomo does not log this info. (The other email did get through, according to Mj2 logs). -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of mié ago 15 18:09:13 -0400 2012: >> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:00 AM, hubert depesz lubaczewski >> <depesz@depesz.com> wrote: >> > hi, >> > mailed some time ago to pgsql-general, and while I see that it was >> > delivered to postgresql.org servers, I didn't get it back from list, and >> > I don't see it in archive - while I do see other mails on the list. >> > >> > any chance someone could look what has happened to it: >> > >> > times are in CEST timezone, so it was ~ 1 hour ago. >> > >> > 2012-08-15 22:44:42 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA <= depesz@depesz.com H=andy.depesz.com (depesz.com) [88.198.47.100] P=esmtpa A=login:depesz@depesz.comS=63911 id=20120815204441.GA30152@depesz.com T="Problem with connection spikes, and slow, very slow,io access" >> > 2012-08-15 22:44:43 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA magus.postgresql.org [2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29] Network is unreachable >> > 2012-08-15 22:44:51 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA => pgsql-general@postgresql.org R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp H=makus.postgresql.org[98.129.198.125] >> > 2012-08-15 22:44:51 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA Completed >> >> >> This is hte message with messageid being delivered into majordomo. >> Unfortunately, majordomo has no logging at all that I know of. But >> Alvaro has sometimes been able to track down where messages are as >> they go through there :) Alvaro? (our local session id on the >> majordomo server is 1T1kSS-0000A1-Fh) > > What do you mean majordomo has no logging? It sure does. In fact, we I didn't say that. I said "that I know of". I've looked *everywhere* for a logfile. Silly me thinking a unix perlscript would have an actual logfile. Per what you write here, it seems to be in one of the databases... > have lots of info about that email just on Mj2 alone, without even have > to look at Exim logs: > > $ $MJSHCMD report-full pgsql-general 2d post | less > ... > post pgsql-general depesz@depesz.com fail 20:44 > (post to pgsql-general) > resend 690058653d9b25bcb737038d12207678e6ef1ea3 1.509 > ... > post pgsql-general depesz@depesz.com succeed 09:42 > (post to pgsql-general) > resend 6fbeb650df71e791ac2e10a5b67505eccfb71f4e 163.296 > ... > > $ $MJSHCMD sessioninfo 690058653d9b25bcb737038d12207678e6ef1ea3 > The following information was recorded for session number > 690058653d9b25bcb737038d12207678e6ef1ea3. > > Source: resend > PID: 678 > > Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([98.129.198.125]) > by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) > (envelope-from <depesz@depesz.com>) > id 1T1kSS-0000A1-Fh > for pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:44:53 +0000 > Received: from andy.depesz.com ([88.198.47.100] helo=depesz.com) > by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) > (envelope-from <depesz@depesz.com>) > id 1T1kSL-0001py-7x > for pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:44:51 +0000 > Received: from andy.depesz.com ([88.198.47.100] helo=depesz.com) > by depesz.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) > (envelope-from <depesz@depesz.com>) > id 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA > for pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:44:42 +0200 > Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:44:42 +0200 > From: hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@depesz.com> > Sender: depesz@depesz.com > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Problem with connection spikes, and slow, very slow, io access > Message-ID: <20120815204441.GA30152@depesz.com> > Reply-To: depesz@depesz.com > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > Content-Disposition: inline > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) > X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) > > 0: (post to pgsql-general) > > > > So we know it *failed*, though we don't know *why* ... it does seem that > Majordomo does not log this info. Hah. that would be the most important reason for it to log it of course.. Is there a way to find out how big it was? IIRC, depesz wrote something about cutting the size down for the second message - maybe it got rejected because it was too big? -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 03:46:28PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Hah. that would be the most important reason for it to log it of course..
>
> Is there a way to find out how big it was? IIRC, depesz wrote
> something about cutting the size down for the second message - maybe
> it got rejected because it was too big?
my original email, the one that was lost was 63682 bytes as stored in
file in my outbox.
it could "gain some weight" when passing mail servers in form of
additional headers.
Best regards,
depesz
--
The best thing about modern society is how easy it is to avoid contact with it.
http://depesz.com/
Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of jue ago 16 09:46:28 -0400 2012: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> This is hte message with messageid being delivered into majordomo. > >> Unfortunately, majordomo has no logging at all that I know of. But > >> Alvaro has sometimes been able to track down where messages are as > >> they go through there :) Alvaro? (our local session id on the > >> majordomo server is 1T1kSS-0000A1-Fh) > > > > What do you mean majordomo has no logging? It sure does. In fact, we > > I didn't say that. I said "that I know of". > > I've looked *everywhere* for a logfile. > > Silly me thinking a unix perlscript would have an actual logfile. Per > what you write here, it seems to be in one of the databases... Well :-) It's lists/postgresql.org/GLOBAL/_log, so no wonder you didn't find it. It is almost a plain-text file; the fields in there are separated by ^A. You can actually see it and grep in it, though mj_shell seems a reasonable interface to decode it. > > So we know it *failed*, though we don't know *why* ... it does seem that > > Majordomo does not log this info. > > Hah. that would be the most important reason for it to log it of course.. No doubt. > Is there a way to find out how big it was? IIRC, depesz wrote > something about cutting the size down for the second message - maybe > it got rejected because it was too big? The maximum allowed message length seems to be 40000 bytes (except for lists that have raised it explicitely such as pgsql-hackers). Should we raise that limit? -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of jue ago 16 09:46:28 -0400 2012: >> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Is there a way to find out how big it was? IIRC, depesz wrote >> something about cutting the size down for the second message - maybe >> it got rejected because it was too big? > > The maximum allowed message length seems to be 40000 bytes (except for > lists that have raised it explicitely such as pgsql-hackers). Should we > raise that limit? I think the important thing is: 1) can we define two limits, one that just ends up being moderated instead of rejected? and 2) the system should *tell* depesz that it was too big, somehow.Is that broken? -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of jue ago 16 10:14:41 -0400 2012: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of jue ago 16 09:46:28 -0400 2012: > >> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera > >> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> Is there a way to find out how big it was? IIRC, depesz wrote > >> something about cutting the size down for the second message - maybe > >> it got rejected because it was too big? > > > > The maximum allowed message length seems to be 40000 bytes (except for > > lists that have raised it explicitely such as pgsql-hackers). Should we > > raise that limit? > > I think the important thing is: > 1) can we define two limits, one that just ends up being moderated > instead of rejected? Yes, I think we can do that. > and > 2) the system should *tell* depesz that it was too big, somehow.Is that broken? I don't really know the answer to this. Yes, it should send out an email informing of the problem. Not sure why it's not working. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of jue ago 16 10:14:41 -0400 2012:
>> 2) the system should *tell* depesz that it was too big, somehow.Is that broken?
> I don't really know the answer to this. Yes, it should send out an
> email informing of the problem. Not sure why it's not working.
I think it works for some people and not others (eg, it works for me, at
least I get something anytime mail is held for moderation). So maybe
something to do with their majordomo account configuration?
regards, tom lane
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of jue ago 16 10:47:30 -0400 2012: > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of jue ago 16 10:14:41 -0400 2012: > >> 2) the system should *tell* depesz that it was too big, somehow.Is that broken? > > > I don't really know the answer to this. Yes, it should send out an > > email informing of the problem. Not sure why it's not working. > > I think it works for some people and not others (eg, it works for me, at > least I get something anytime mail is held for moderation). So maybe > something to do with their majordomo account configuration? But there is a difference somewhere: it seems to notify fine for mails that are held for moderation, but not for those that cause an outright failure. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Tom Lane's message: >> I think it works for some people and not others (eg, it works for >> me, at least I get something anytime mail is held for >> moderation). So maybe something to do with their majordomo >> account configuration? > > But there is a difference somewhere: it seems to notify fine for > mails that are held for moderation, but not for those that cause > an outright failure. I have these three options which must be set separately for each list: ackdeny ackpost ackreject ackstall These all default to off. I leave ackpost off but set the others. That seems to work for me. -Kevin
Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message of jue ago 16 11:05:40 -0400 2012: > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Excerpts from Tom Lane's message: > > >> I think it works for some people and not others (eg, it works for > >> me, at least I get something anytime mail is held for > >> moderation). So maybe something to do with their majordomo > >> account configuration? > > > > But there is a difference somewhere: it seems to notify fine for > > mails that are held for moderation, but not for those that cause > > an outright failure. > > I have these three options which must be set separately for each > list: > > ackdeny ackpost ackreject ackstall > > These all default to off. I leave ackpost off but set the others. > That seems to work for me. Ah-hah, thanks. Maybe we should turn these on (save for ackpost) for everyone. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message of jue ago 16 11:05:40 -0400 2012: >> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > Excerpts from Tom Lane's message: >> >> >> I think it works for some people and not others (eg, it works for >> >> me, at least I get something anytime mail is held for >> >> moderation). So maybe something to do with their majordomo >> >> account configuration? >> > >> > But there is a difference somewhere: it seems to notify fine for >> > mails that are held for moderation, but not for those that cause >> > an outright failure. >> >> I have these three options which must be set separately for each >> list: >> >> ackdeny ackpost ackreject ackstall >> >> These all default to off. I leave ackpost off but set the others. >> That seems to work for me. > > Ah-hah, thanks. Maybe we should turn these on (save for ackpost) for > everyone. Yeah, that sounds like a good idea to me. -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/