On Monday 17 February 2003 19:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andreas Schmitz <a(dot)schmitz(at)cityweb(dot)de> writes:
> > I think it is not the same. When I ran the vaccum when no other clients
> > whe= re=20
> > connected to the database.
> The vacuum that reports the NOTICEs is not the one that created the
> problem. The scenario I was talking about requires concurrent clients
> during the preceding vacuum.
> regards, tom lane
ok. I got that one. I was able to reproduce it. but it still doesn't solve the
problem. fact is that I loose data and that is a big problem.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2003-02-17 20:44:43|
|Subject: Re: COUNT and Performance ...|
|Previous:||From: mlw||Date: 2003-02-17 20:25:47|
|Subject: Yet another configuration patch with include, and configuration dir|
pgsql-admin by date
|Next:||From: Benedetto||Date: 2003-02-17 21:19:26|
|Subject: data-time type|
|Previous:||From: Bjrn Metzdorf||Date: 2003-02-17 20:30:58|
|Subject: Re: FATAL 2: open of /usr/local/pgsql/data/pg_clog/0943 failed|