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

Re: BUG #2712: could not fsync segment: Permission

From: "Peter Brant" <Peter(dot)Brant(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Thomas H(dot)" <me(at)alternize(dot)com>,<pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG #2712: could not fsync segment: Permission
Date: 2006-10-23 19:24:25
Message-ID: 453D3309.E840.00BE.0@wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-patches
Move to Linux. :-)  In our case, everything but the database servers
were already Linux so it was an easy choice.  Things have been rock
solid since then.

Once things get stuck, I don't think there is an alternative besides
"stop -m immediate".  However, since the problem is caused by an idle
backend holding onto an old WAL segment, maybe having your middle
tier/connection pool close and reopen the connections to the database
every so often would function as a workaround.  Somebody with more
knowledge of PG internals than I would have to define "every so often"
though (if the idea is viable at all).

Pete

>>> "Thomas H." <me(at)alternize(dot)com> 23.10.2006 20:00 >>>
is there any workaround? how did you get around that problem of having
a 
total lockdown?


In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-10-23 19:47:14
Subject: Re: BUG #2712: could not fsync segment: Permission
Previous:From: Peter BrantDate: 2006-10-23 18:59:39
Subject: Re: BUG #2712: could not fsync segment: Permission

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Zdenek KotalaDate: 2006-10-23 19:43:47
Subject: COPY does not work with regproc and aclitem
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-10-23 19:08:03
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] smartvacuum() instead of autovacuum

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