Re: Back-branch update releases coming in a couple weeks - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | MauMau |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Back-branch update releases coming in a couple weeks |
Date | |
Msg-id | 7AE503F0CB83442082C20ECE2B0A6E4B@maumau Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Back-branch update releases coming in a couple weeks (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Back-branch update releases coming in a couple weeks
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
From: "Fujii Masao" <masao.fujii@gmail.com> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:42 AM, MauMau <maumau307@gmail.com> wrote: >> I searched through PostgreSQL mailing lists with "WAL contains references >> to >> invalid pages", and i found 19 messages. Some people encountered similar >> problem. There were some discussions regarding those problems (Tom and >> Simon Riggs commented), but those discussions did not reach a solution. >> >> I also found a discussion which might relate to this problem. Does this >> fix >> the problem? >> >> [BUG] lag of minRecoveryPont in archive recovery >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20121206.130458.170549097.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp > > Yes. Could you check whether you can reproduce the problem on the > latest REL9_2_STABLE? I tried to produce the problem by doing "pg_ctl stop -mi" against the primary more than ten times on REL9_2_STABLE, but the problem did not appear. However, I encountered the crash only once out of dozens of failovers, possibly more than a hundred times, on PostgreSQL 9.1.6. So, I'm not sure the problem is fixed in REL9_2_STABLE. I'm wondering if the fix discussed in the above thread solves my problem. I found the following differences between Horiguchi-san's case and my case: (1) Horiguchi-san says the bug outputs the message: WARNING: page 0 of relation base/16384/16385 does not exist On the other hand, I got the message: WARNING: page 506747 of relation base/482272/482304 was uninitialized (2) Horiguchi-san produced the problem when he shut the standby immediately and restarted it. However, I saw the problem during failover. (3) Horiguchi-san did not use any index, but in my case the WARNING message refers to an index. But there's a similar point. Horiguchi-san says the problem occurs after DELETE+VACUUM. In my case, I shut the primary down while the application was doing INSERT/UPDATE. As the below messages show, some vacuuming was running just before the immediate shutdown: ... LOG: automatic vacuum of table "GOLD.scm1.tbl1": index scans: 0pages: 0 removed, 36743 remaintuples: 0 removed, 73764 remainsystemusage: CPU 0.09s/0.11u sec elapsed 0.66 sec LOG: automatic analyze of table "GOLD.scm1.tbl1" system usage: CPU 0.00s/0.14u sec elapsed 0.32 sec LOG: automatic vacuum of table "GOLD.scm1.tbl2": index scans: 0pages: 0 removed, 12101 remaintuples: 40657 removed, 44142remain system usage: CPU 0.06s/0.06u sec elapsed 0.30 sec LOG: automatic analyze of table "GOLD.scm1.tbl2" system usage: CPU 0.00s/0.06u sec elapsed 0.14 sec LOG: received immediate shutdown request ... Could you tell me the details of the problem discussed and fixed in the upcoming minor release? I would to like to know the phenomenon and its conditions, and whether it applies to my case. Regards MauMau
pgsql-hackers by date: