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

Re: odd output in initdb

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: odd output in initdb
Date: 2010-02-01 09:07:21
Message-ID: 9837222c1002010107o4e79f282x67a777771f9b2cf@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
2010/2/1 Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>:
>
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, on close inspection it looks to me like this commit: "Create
>>> typedef pgsocket for storing socket descriptors."
>>> <http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=ea1a4463e9de9662b7c9e13374ec8c7b92ff2f19>
>>> could well be the culprit.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not claiming it's not, but what exactly points to that? Does the
>> problem go away if you move to a version before that?
>>
>> Because I'm 99% sure I saw it well before that commit, and we've had
>> reports on it from 8.4 as well, I'm not so sure... But it may be that
>> that commit made something more likely to happen...
>>
>
>
> The buildfarm logs say otherwise. This was first seen in Jan 10, at least on my Windows animals:
>
>   pgbfprod=# select sysname, min(snapshot) from build_status_log where
>   sysname ~ 'bat' and log_stage ~ 'initdb' and log_text ~ 'pgstat'
>   group by sysname;
>    sysname  |         min           ----------+---------------------
>    dawn_bat | 2010-01-10 17:30:02
>    red_bat  | 2010-01-10 23:30:01
>   (2 rows)


Well, that's clearly information I didn't have access to ;)

We *have* seen it before. But I guess that change either made it more
likely to happen, or it's a different issue with the same message.

But this one may well have been the -1 vs PGINVALID_SOCKET checks. It
didn't show up in my intial tests, but it also didn't show up entirely
consistently before :S The latest run of mastodon is also not showing
it.

Did those two members produce consistent issues? Can you give them a
couple of kicks to get enough buidls out of them to figure out if this
solved the problem?

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2010-02-01 09:26:04
Subject: Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-02-01 08:54:03
Subject: Re: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL

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