| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu, mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net, icub3d(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block |
| Date: | 2005-11-17 17:51:39 |
| Message-ID: | 29369.1132249899@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> None of this seems material, however. It's pretty clear that the
> problem was exhaustion of the Windows page pool.
> ...
> If we don't want to tell Windows users to make highly technical
> changes to the Windows registry in order to use PostgreSQL,
> it does seem wise to use retries, as has already been discussed
> on this thread.
Would a simple retry loop actually help? It's not clear to me how
persistent such a failure would be.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2005-11-17 18:01:13 | Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2005-11-17 17:39:20 | Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2005-11-17 18:01:13 | Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-17 17:48:45 | Re: Numeric 508 datatype |