From: | Marcin Inkielman <marn(at)wsisiz(dot)edu(dot)pl> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PG 7.0 vacuum problem |
Date: | 2000-05-26 00:06:07 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0005260202120.458-100000@mi.marnnet |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, 25 May 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 19:49:00 -0400
> From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> To: Marcin Inkielman <marn(at)wsisiz(dot)edu(dot)pl>
> Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PG 7.0 vacuum problem
>
> Marcin Inkielman <marn(at)wsisiz(dot)edu(dot)pl> writes:
> > i rescently upgraded my system from PG6.53 to PG7.0. after a few days of
> > work i am unable to do a vacuum on one of tables:
>
> > nat=# VACUUM verbose analyze osoby;
> > NOTICE: FlushRelationBuffers(osoby, 182): block 186 is referenced
> > (private 0, global 3)
> > FATAL 1: VACUUM (vc_repair_frag): FlushRelationBuffers returned -2
>
> Hmm. Have you had any backend crashes? What seems to be happening here
> is that there are some leftover reference counts on one of the shared
> disk buffers for that relation. That should never be true while VACUUM
> is running, because no other backend is supposed to be referencing that
> table.
>
> > do i risk anything if i do:
>
> > pg_dump nat> tmp
> > dropdb nat
> > createdb nat
> > psql nat <tmp
>
> Probably won't work either. Instead, try stopping and restarting the
> postmaster --- if my theory is right, that should get rid of the
> leftover reference counts. But the real question is how did it get
> into this state in the first place...
thanks, it worked! before this, i tried to recreate my database using
another name (and without destroying the old one) - it worked too!
--
mi
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | J.R. | 2000-05-26 02:26:46 | createdb -- alternate locations |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-05-25 23:56:37 | Re: initdb and "exit_nicely"... |