Re: BUG #4565: nextval not updated during wal replication, leading to pk violations

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Marc Schablewski <ms(at)clickware(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #4565: nextval not updated during wal replication, leading to pk violations
Date: 2008-12-10 23:31:57
Message-ID: 8825.1228951917@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Marc Schablewski <ms(at)clickware(dot)de> writes:
> Now everything seems to work fine, but we are still testing. At least
> what we see in the logs is more reasonable. Now the .backup file is
> requested first, then the WALs. There is one strange thing left, though.
> The server first requests the second WAL, then the first one, then the
> second again and then it processes them in order (second, third, fourth,
> ...). Is this normal?

It doesn't surprise me if something like that happens during PITR
startup.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Carey 2008-12-11 00:07:41 BUG #4575: All page cache in shared_buffers pinned (duplicated by OS, always)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-12-10 16:44:12 Re: Bug in plpgsql, when using NEW with composite field value.