| From: | Kouber Saparev <kouber(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BF mamba failure |
| Date: | 2025-08-08 09:04:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAN4RuQt_Sr9h2NG0-fr7XSmU=DeHkzTeysCuOAWhWrkuhw8Puw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Indeed, nothing exotic about our replication.
As for the object 4169049057, I am not able to find it anywhere in the
catalogs. Perhaps it was something that was dropped in the meantime.
На чт, 7.08.2025 г. в 2:18 Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> написа:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 01:00:35PM +0300, Kouber Saparev wrote:
> > We just had the same sudden replica shutdown, this time with version
> 17.3.
> >
> > 2025-08-02 22:10:02.229 UTC,,,473966,,67b3d76c.73b6e,14,,2025-02-18
> > 00:42:20 UTC,8111/0,0,FATAL,XX000,"trying to drop stats entry already
> > dropped: kind=relation dboid=16420 objoid=4169049057 refcount=1",,,,,"WAL
> > redo at 6337E/9FF275E8 for Transaction/COMMIT: 2025-08-02
>
> You are close to wraparound for this relation. Is that vanilla
> streaming replication with heap?
> --
> Michael
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2025-08-08 09:09:27 | Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory? |
| Previous Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2025-08-08 08:49:54 | Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory? |