Re: Fwd: Cluster "stuck" in "not accepting commands to avoid wraparound data loss"

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Cluster "stuck" in "not accepting commands to avoid wraparound data loss"
Date: 2015-12-17 18:08:15
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYuCJQNEYS2oOZrqtYX1AzfZisdhy-GA0g47-CSZz8vgw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2015-12-17 09:04:25 -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> > But I'm somewhat confused what this has to do with Andres's report.
>>
>> Doesn't it explain the exact situation he is in, where the oldest
>> database is 200 million, but the cluster as a whole is 2 billion?
>
> There were no crashes, so no, I don't think so.

Backing up a step, do we think that the fact that this was running in
a shell rather than a screen is relevant somehow? Or did something
happen to this particular cluster totally unrelated to that?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-12-17 18:11:07 Re: Patch: fix lock contention for HASHHDR.mutex
Previous Message Jeff Janes 2015-12-17 17:31:15 Re: Cluster "stuck" in "not accepting commands to avoid wraparound data loss"