| From: | bricklen <bricklen(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag was incorrectly set happend during repeatable vacuum |
| Date: | 2011-03-03 00:20:24 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikNL3wqx5t_-TCmWOKhd+PZUakB=FmNUCqH0ZNn@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 3:53 PM, daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net> wrote:
>> > Postgresql version is 8.4.4.
>>
>> I don't see how this could be related, but since you're running on NFS,
>> maybe it is, somehow:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4D40DDB7.1010000@credativ.com
>> (for example what if the visibility map fork's last page is overwritten?)
>
> Running on ISCSI, not nfs. But it is still a Netapp, so who knows. I'll look.
> Also, we are not seeing any of the "unexpected data beyond EOF" errors,
> just thousands per day of the PD_ALL_VISIBLE error.
>
> -dg
FWIW, we had a couple occurrences of that message about a month ago on 9.0.2
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2011-01/msg00887.php
Haven't seen it since we ran a cluster-wide vacuum.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | daveg | 2011-03-03 00:29:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag was incorrectly set happend during repeatable vacuum |
| Previous Message | daveg | 2011-03-02 23:53:54 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag was incorrectly set happend during repeatable vacuum |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | daveg | 2011-03-03 00:29:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag was incorrectly set happend during repeatable vacuum |
| Previous Message | daveg | 2011-03-02 23:53:54 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag was incorrectly set happend during repeatable vacuum |