When grilled further on (Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:19:44 -0500),
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> confessed:
> Robert Creager <Robert_Creager@LogicalChaos.org> writes:
> > What more information would you be looking for?
>
> Well, in the words of the old saw, if we knew what we were looking for
> it wouldn't be research ...
That's fine. The 'tone' of your e-mail led me to believe I wasn't providing
something obvious, which I could believe.
>
> I'm sure we could solve it quickly if we could get a reproducible test
> case, but it sounds like you are nowhere near being able to provide
> that. I would suggest looking for context information: what else is
> happening at the same time this happens?
Multiple 'simultaneous' connections (through forking) is a possibility. I
believe it was 4 child processes when this occurred the last time, but I'm not
100% sure.
>
> Another thing that would probably give enough information to solve it
> is a trace of the connection from a TCP packet sniffer, for at least
> a few packets leading up to the error message. Not sure if it's
> practical to try to get one, but if you could it'd be great.
Not a problem. Thankfully I have full control on this box, not the Solaris side
though. And the box is dedicated to this database, so there shouldnb't be a ton
of extra traffic either. Just the normal mis-configured network client
broadcast jabber ;-) I should be able to figure out tcpdump enough to filter
out all traffic except that between the two servers.
Cheers,
Rob
--
20:40:25 up 25 days, 10:27, 4 users, load average: 2.02, 2.02, 2.00
