Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>,<icub3d(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block
Date: 2005-11-17 18:01:13
Message-ID: 437C710902000025000007BF@gwmta.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers

I'm not an expert on that, but it seems reasonable to me that the
page pool would free space as the I/O system caught up with
the load. Also, I'm going on what was said by Qingqing and
in one of the pages he referenced:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274310

-Kevin

>>> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> >>>
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> None of this seems material, however. It's pretty clear that the
> problem was exhaustion of the Windows page pool.
> ...
> If we don't want to tell Windows users to make highly technical
> changes to the Windows registry in order to use PostgreSQL,
> it does seem wise to use retries, as has already been discussed
> on this thread.

Would a simple retry loop actually help? It's not clear to me how
persistent such a failure would be.

regards, tom lane

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2005-11-17 18:56:21 Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-11-17 17:51:39 Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-11-17 18:29:29 Re: Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-11-17 17:51:39 Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block