Thread: PostgreSQL GIT mirror status
I tried to fix the GIT mirror, using the procedure I outlined here: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4959F0A8.9070704@enterprisedb.com but I ran into what seems to be a 512MB data segment size limit in the FreeBSD jail. I don't know how fix that, so I restored the repository to the same broken state it was before. I'll try again as soon as someone figures out how to raise that limit. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > I tried to fix the GIT mirror, using the procedure I outlined here: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4959F0A8.9070704@enterprisedb.com > > but I ran into what seems to be a 512MB data segment size limit in the > FreeBSD jail. I don't know how fix that, so I restored the repository to > the same broken state it was before. > > I'll try again as soon as someone figures out how to raise that limit. Call me a tad confused given your follow-up post to this - do you still want us to raise that limit (and how far?). I'm also bit concerned about having to run a process with excessive resource requirements like this on a regular base on this host or is/was this just for a one-off conversation? Stefan
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> I tried to fix the GIT mirror, using the procedure I outlined here: >> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4959F0A8.9070704@enterprisedb.com >> >> >> but I ran into what seems to be a 512MB data segment size limit in the >> FreeBSD jail. I don't know how fix that, so I restored the repository >> to the same broken state it was before. >> >> I'll try again as soon as someone figures out how to raise that limit. > > Call me a tad confused given your follow-up post to this - do you still > want us to raise that limit (and how far?). Sorry for the confusion. In the end, I ran the script manually on my laptop, and copied over the result to the server. So no need to raise limit anymore. > I'm also bit concerned about having to run a process with excessive > resource requirements like this on a regular base on this host or is/was > this just for a one-off conversation? It was a one-off thing. I was originally thinking that we could continue using the patched script, but given how much more resource-hungry it is, it doesn't seem like a good idea. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com