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

Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>,<icub3d(at)gmail(dot)com>,<pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,<mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block
Date: 2005-11-17 18:01:13
Message-ID: 437C710902000025000007BF@gwmta.wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-adminpgsql-hackers
I'm not an expert on that, but it seems reasonable to me that the
page pool would free space as the I/O system caught up with
the load.  Also, I'm going on what was said by Qingqing and
in one of the pages he referenced:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274310

-Kevin


>>> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>  >>>
"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


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-11-17 18:29:29
Subject: Re: Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-11-17 17:51:39
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2005-11-17 18:56:21
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-11-17 17:51:39
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block

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