Thread: fatal error on 8.1 server
I don't know what the exact version is but I am getting this: FATAL: database is not accepting commands to avoid wraparound data loss in database "postgres" How can I recover from this and why woud this happen to the postgres database? Has my server been hacked? there should be no inserts or anything going on. Thanks, -- Tony Caduto AM Software Design http://www.amsoftwaredesign.com Home of PG Lightning Admin for Postgresql Your best bet for Postgresql Administration
Tony Caduto wrote: > I don't know what the exact version is but I am getting this: > > FATAL: database is not accepting commands to avoid wraparound data loss > in database "postgres" > > How can I recover from this and why woud this happen to the postgres > database? Has my server been hacked? there should be no inserts or > anything going on. Stop the postmaster, start a standalone backend, and issue a database-wide VACUUM on database postgres. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tony Caduto wrote: > >> I don't know what the exact version is but I am getting this: >> >> FATAL: database is not accepting commands to avoid wraparound data loss >> in database "postgres" >> >> How can I recover from this and why woud this happen to the postgres >> database? Has my server been hacked? there should be no inserts or >> anything going on. >> > > Stop the postmaster, start a standalone backend, and issue a > database-wide VACUUM on database postgres. > > Yep, I saw that in the docs, now I am just having problems finding a standalone backend, not sure what that means. -- Tony Caduto AM Software Design http://www.amsoftwaredesign.com Home of PG Lightning Admin for Postgresql Your best bet for Postgresql Administration
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 13:36 -0600, Tony Caduto wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Tony Caduto wrote:
> >
> >> I don't know what the exact version is but I am getting this:
> >>
> >> FATAL: database is not accepting commands to avoid wraparound data loss
> >> in database "postgres"
> >>
> >> How can I recover from this and why woud this happen to the postgres
> >> database? Has my server been hacked? there should be no inserts or
> >> anything going on.
> >>
> >
> > Stop the postmaster, start a standalone backend, and issue a
> > database-wide VACUUM on database postgres.
> >
> >
> Yep, I saw that in the docs, now I am just having problems finding a
> standalone backend, not sure what that means.
postgres.exe or possibly postmaster.exe I don't know how the windows
side does it.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Stop the postmaster, start a standalone backend, and issue a > database-wide VACUUM on database postgres. > > Just in case anyone is interested I did get it up and running with no damage to the system. It took well over a year for it to reach the 1 million threshold mark. This is on a very very busy Postfix email server that does lookups against at table for things like relay hosts etc. It took awhile for me to piece together everything I needed from the docs, I found the info about starting a standalone backend in the reindex docs. -- Tony Caduto AM Software Design http://www.amsoftwaredesign.com Home of PG Lightning Admin for Postgresql Your best bet for Postgresql Administration
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 02:22:19PM -0600, Tony Caduto wrote: > Just in case anyone is interested I did get it up and running with no > damage to the system. > It took well over a year for it to reach the 1 million threshold mark. You mean one *billion*, right? That's one busy server! Hopeefully you've updated your maintainence setup to avoid this in the future? Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
Attachment
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 02:22:19PM -0600, Tony Caduto wrote: > >> Just in case anyone is interested I did get it up and running with no >> damage to the system. >> It took well over a year for it to reach the 1 million threshold mark. >> > > You mean one *billion*, right? > > That's one busy server! > > Hopeefully you've updated your maintainence setup to avoid this in the > future? > > Have a nice day, > The server stops accepting requests when it is 1 million transactions away from hitting 1 billion. That's what I meant by the 1 million threshold :-) I did not have autovacuum turned on and I usually do a vacuumdb -z -a -f -q each night but this one slipped through the cracks :-( Later, -- Tony Caduto AM Software Design http://www.amsoftwaredesign.com Home of PG Lightning Admin for Postgresql Your best bet for Postgresql Administration
Tony Caduto wrote: > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > >On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 02:22:19PM -0600, Tony Caduto wrote: > > > >>Just in case anyone is interested I did get it up and running with no > >>damage to the system. > >>It took well over a year for it to reach the 1 million threshold mark. > >> > > > >You mean one *billion*, right? > > > >That's one busy server! > > > >Hopeefully you've updated your maintainence setup to avoid this in the > >future? > > > >Have a nice day, > > > The server stops accepting requests when it is 1 million transactions > away from hitting 1 billion. > That's what I meant by the 1 million threshold :-) > > I did not have autovacuum turned on and I usually do a vacuumdb -z -a -f > -q each night but this one slipped through the cracks :-( Strange -- autovacuum should have started an automatic database-wide vacuum on that database, even if disabled. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Tony Caduto wrote:
>> I did not have autovacuum turned on and I usually do a vacuumdb -z -a -f
>> -q each night but this one slipped through the cracks :-(
> Strange -- autovacuum should have started an automatic database-wide
> vacuum on that database, even if disabled.
We only added that in 8.2, no? 8.1 autovacuum would have forced the
vacuum to occur, but only if it was enabled in postgresql.conf.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: > >> Tony Caduto wrote: >> >>> I did not have autovacuum turned on and I usually do a vacuumdb -z -a -f >>> -q each night but this one slipped through the cracks :-( >>> > > >> Strange -- autovacuum should have started an automatic database-wide >> vacuum on that database, even if disabled. >> > > We only added that in 8.2, no? 8.1 autovacuum would have forced the > vacuum to occur, but only if it was enabled in postgresql.conf. > And in 8.2 it's only a per table vacuum that is required. Is that correct too? > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq > > >