Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: ehm...

From: andrea gelmini <andrea(dot)gelmini(at)linux(dot)it>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: andrea gelmini <andrea(dot)gelmini(at)linux(dot)it>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ehm...
Date: 2002-01-11 20:03:41
Message-ID: 20020111200340.GA1244@linux.it (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
On ven, gen 11, 2002 at 01:56:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yup, it looks like a bug to me.  Apparently a CLOG segment has been
> recycled too soon.  We just found a bug of that ilk in sequence
> processing, but VACUUM doesn't touch sequences, so apparently you have
> a different bug.  Please submit details.
yes, i will retry tonight.
what kind of info do you want?
by the way i can give you script and the rest of things you need (and it will be very
easily for you to reproduce the problem... the script is very simple, and
schema is nothing more than a few tables).

> If you don't mind doing an initdb, you could reduce the CLOG segment
no problem, i do initdb everytime I recompile cvs...

> size to make it easier to try to reproduce the problem.  In
> src/backend/access/transam/clog.c change
> #define CLOG_XACTS_PER_SEGMENT	0x100000
> to 0x10000 (I think that's about as small as you can make it without
> breaking anything).  That gives you a shot at a problem every 64K
> transactions.

thanks for your time,
andrea

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-01-11 20:16:12
Subject: Re: ehm...
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-01-11 19:16:19
Subject: Re: Bad integer

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group