Re: Back-branch update releases coming in a couple weeks

From: "Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:53 PM, MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'm wondering if the fix discussed in the above thread solves my problem.
>> I
>> found the following differences between Horiguchi-san's case and my case:
>>
>> (1)
>> Horiguchi-san says the bug outputs the message:
>>
>> WARNING: page 0 of relation base/16384/16385 does not exist
>>
>> On the other hand, I got the message:
>>
>>
>> WARNING: page 506747 of relation base/482272/482304 was uninitialized
>>
>>
>> (2)
>> Horiguchi-san produced the problem when he shut the standby immediately
>> and
>> restarted it. However, I saw the problem during failover.
>>
>>
>> (3)
>> Horiguchi-san did not use any index, but in my case the WARNING message
>> refers to an index.
>>
>>
>> But there's a similar point. Horiguchi-san says the problem occurs after
>> DELETE+VACUUM. In my case, I shut the primary down while the application
>> was doing INSERT/UPDATE. As the below messages show, some vacuuming was
>> running just before the immediate shutdown:
>>
>> ...
>> LOG: automatic vacuum of table "GOLD.scm1.tbl1": index scans: 0
>> pages: 0 removed, 36743 remain
>> tuples: 0 removed, 73764 remain
>> system usage: CPU 0.09s/0.11u sec elapsed 0.66 sec
>> LOG: automatic analyze of table "GOLD.scm1.tbl1" system usage: CPU
>> 0.00s/0.14u sec elapsed 0.32 sec
>> LOG: automatic vacuum of table "GOLD.scm1.tbl2": index scans: 0
>> pages: 0 removed, 12101 remain
>> tuples: 40657 removed, 44142 remain system usage: CPU 0.06s/0.06u sec
>> elapsed 0.30 sec
>> LOG: automatic analyze of table "GOLD.scm1.tbl2" system usage: CPU
>> 0.00s/0.06u sec elapsed 0.14 sec
>> LOG: received immediate shutdown request
>> ...
>>
>>
>> Could you tell me the details of the problem discussed and fixed in the
>> upcoming minor release? I would to like to know the phenomenon and its
>> conditions, and whether it applies to my case.
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20121206.130458.170549097.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
>
> Could you read the discussion in the above thread?

Yes, I've just read the discussion (it was difficult for me...)

Although you said the fix will solve my problem, I don't feel it will. The
discussion is about the crash when the standby "re"starts after the primary
vacuums and truncates a table. On the other hand, in my case, the standby
crashed during failover (not at restart), emitting a message that some WAL
record refers to an "uninitialized" page (not a non-existent page) of an
"index" (not a table).

In addition, fujii_test.sh did not reproduce the mentioned crash on
PostgreSQL 9.1.6.

I'm sorry to cause you trouble, but could you elaborate on how the fix
relates to my case?

Regards
MauMau