Possible large object bug?

From: "Joe Shevland" <shevlandj(at)kpi(dot)com(dot)au>
To: <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Possible large object bug?
Date: 2001-03-27 00:37:35
Message-ID: OFEBIGHBGKHLLAGNINLFEEEGCAAA.shevlandj@kpi.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc

Hi,

Semi-topical I hope ;) I've started using Postgres 7.1 (FreeBSD 4.2-S) and large objects via JDBC. (postmaster (PostgreSQL) 7.1beta5)

Everything has been working nicely with storing/retrieving blobs, until last night during a vacuum of the database the backend process crashed with the messages added to the end of this email. I'm also using the 'vacuumlo' contributed code. The order of the cron jobs is:

59 2 * * * postgres /usr/local/pgsql/bin/vacuumlo -v db1 db2 db3
59 3 * * * postgres /usr/local/pgsql/bin/vacuumdb -z db1
59 4 * * * postgres /usr/local/pgsql/bin/vacuumdb -z db2
59 5 * * * postgres /usr/local/pgsql/bin/vacuumdb -z db3

so I was wondering if there might be a bug in the vacuumlo code (though its vacuumdb dying)? Or I was thinking, because they're development db's, that frequent dropping/recreating of tables is maybe causing the prob? The same vacuum commands have run fine before, both from cron and the command line, the only difference was slightly heavier dropping/recreating yesterday.

I'm yet to see if that particular database is stuffed as I can recreate and retest easily enough. Let me know if I can give any further info,

Regards,
Joe

---
NOTICE: Rel pg_attribute: TID 1/115: OID IS INVALID. TUPGONE 1.
...
NOTICE: Rel pg_attribute: TID 1/6087: OID IS INVALID. TUPGONE 1.
NOTICE: Rel pg_attribute: TID 1/6111: OID IS INVALID. TUPGONE 1.
NOTICE: Rel pg_attribute: TID 1/6112: OID IS INVALID. TUPGONE 1.
NOTICE: Rel pg_attribute: TID 1/6136: OID IS INVALID. TUPGONE 1.
NOTICE: Rel pg_attribute: TID 1/6137: OID IS INVALID. TUPGONE 1.
pqReadData() -- backend closed the channel unexpectedly.
This probably means the backend terminated abnormally
before or while processing the request.
connection to server was lost
vacuumdb: vacuum db2 failed
---

with ~500 of the NOTICE lines then the crash. About 1% give a TUPGONE 0 ending instead.

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-03-27 01:00:54 Re: [JDBC] Possible large object bug?
Previous Message pgsql-bugs 2001-03-26 22:08:41 Local Host Security? All users should have passwords optionally...

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-03-27 00:53:44 Re: Re: Call for platforms
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-03-27 00:09:38 Re: Re: Call for platforms

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-03-27 01:00:54 Re: [JDBC] Possible large object bug?
Previous Message Mike Cannon-Brookes 2001-03-26 21:54:15 RE: Compiling