| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Disaster! |
| Date: | 2004-01-26 09:04:09 |
| Message-ID: | 20040126170300.K98100-100000@houston.familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Awesome Tom :)
I'm glad I happened to have all the data required on hand to fully analyze
the problem. Let's hope this make this failure condition go away for all
future postgresql users :)
Chris
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> Okay ... Chris was kind enough to let me examine the WAL logs and
> postmaster stderr log for his recent problem, and I believe that
> I have now achieved a full understanding of what happened. The true
> bug is indeed somewhere else than slru.c, and we would not have found
> it if slru.c had had less-paranoid error checking.
<snip>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Brusser | 2004-01-26 12:42:19 | Corrupted db? |
| Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2004-01-26 05:52:58 | Re: Disaster! |