Thread: Sourceforge PG crash
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=80610 Be interesting to get some more details on this. Sourceforge is one of more visable PG sites out there... AZ
Hi, From what I know, Sourceforge was running an early PostgreSQL 7.1 beta or release candidate. Does anyone know if the crash was due to a known bug, or something which is unknown and needs to be fixed? Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift August Zajonc wrote: > > http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=80610 > > Be interesting to get some more details on this. Sourceforge is one of more > visable PG sites out there... > > AZ > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi
They were running a Beta2, or something like that, database and were even warned against it by several of us ... I don't know if they ever upgraded to the full release, but, considering the size of Sourceforge, I'm doubting it, since its only been a week ... then again, maybe they used the crash as an opportunity? On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, August Zajonc wrote: > http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=80610 > > Be interesting to get some more details on this. Sourceforge is one of more > visable PG sites out there... > > AZ > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html > Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
Ahhh... The strong record of stability tempts even the most cautious user into an early upgrade. PostgreSQL clearly needs to introduce more instabilities and bugs in the beta's. I'll be submitting some patches shorty. August ----- Original Message ----- From: "The Hermit Hacker" <scrappy@hub.org> To: "August Zajonc" <junk-postgre@aontic.com> Cc: <bigdisk@users.sourceforge.net>; <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Sourceforge PG crash > > They were running a Beta2, or something like that, database and were even > warned against it by several of us ... I don't know if they ever upgraded > to the full release, but, considering the size of Sourceforge, I'm > doubting it, since its only been a week ... then again, maybe they used > the crash as an opportunity? > > On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, August Zajonc wrote: > > > http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=80610 > > > > Be interesting to get some more details on this. Sourceforge is one of more > > visable PG sites out there... > > > > AZ > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html > > > > Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy > Systems Administrator @ hub.org > primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org > >
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 02:14:31AM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > They were running a Beta2, or something like that, database and were even > warned against it by several of us ... That's probably overstating things a bit, but running betas and CVS snapshots is asking for trouble and we know what we're doing and why we had to do it. > to the full release, but, considering the size of Sourceforge, I'm > doubting it, since its only been a week ... then again, maybe they used > the crash as an opportunity? > > On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, August Zajonc wrote: > > > http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=80610 > > > > Be interesting to get some more details on this. Sourceforge is one of more > > visable PG sites out there... Actually it was beta6 that wigged out and wouldn't start up again. This is from the PG server log: The Data Base System is starting up DEBUG: ReadRecord: invalid magic number 0000 in logfile 49 seg 121 off 9666560 DEBUG: redo done at (49, 2039709660) FATAL 2: XLogWrite: write request is past end of log /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster: Startup proc 577 exited with status 512 - abort The biggest mistake we've ever made was upgrading from our very very happy November 17 pre-beta CVS snapshot to B6 - it was just a nitemare that hosed literally several times a day until it finally conked out the other day. 7.1 released seems very happy so far on our linux 2.4 kernel. I think something very subtle was wrong with b6, because it gave us serious problems. Tim -- Founder - PHPBuilder.com / Geocrawler.com Lead Developer - SourceForge VA Linux Systems
Tim Perdue <tim@sourceforge.net> writes:
> Actually it was beta6 that wigged out and wouldn't start up again.
> This is from the PG server log:
> The Data Base System is starting up
> DEBUG: ReadRecord: invalid magic number 0000 in logfile 49 seg 121 off
> 9666560
> DEBUG: redo done at (49, 2039709660)
> FATAL 2: XLogWrite: write request is past end of log
> /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster: Startup proc 577 exited with status 512 -
> abort
This looks like the problem Vadim found and fixed between RC2 and RC3
(restart after crash would fail if next xlog write point was just at a
page boundary).
> The biggest mistake we've ever made was upgrading from our very very
> happy November 17 pre-beta CVS snapshot to B6 - it was just a nitemare
> that hosed literally several times a day until it finally conked out
> the other day.
AFAIR we didn't hear a word from you about problems --- you really
should have let us know about these crashes...
> 7.1 released seems very happy so far on our linux 2.4 kernel.
Glad to hear it. Please do report any further problems you see.
regards, tom lane