Re: PG 7.0 vacuum problem

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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"...