On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Jaime Casanova <jcasa...@systemguards.com.ec> wrote: > > but, my main concern is why it was asking for > "000000010000000000000006"? is this normal? is this standby's way of > saying i'm working but i have nothing to do? > when that happens after a standby restart, is normal that i have to > wait until the file is created before it can accept connections? >
ok, i see this again in a new env. seems like this happen when i shutdown standby and primary (in that order) after making some WAL-logged action on the primary an then start again primary and standby (in that order)... it doesn't occur always but it does occur too often, still i'm not sure what is the key factor that triggers this standby waits for a file that doesn't exist to reach a consistent state (last time i wait for an hour after i force a WAL-logged action), here is an extract of the message on standby's log: """ postg...@casanova1:/usr/local/pgsql/9.0slave$ cat data/pg_log/postgresql-2010-04-12_000947.log LOG: database system was interrupted while in recovery at log time 2010-04-11 20:44:09 GMT HINT: If this has occurred more than once some data might be corrupted and you might need to choose an earlier recovery target. LOG: entering standby mode LOG: restored log file "000000010000000E00000014" from archive LOG: redo starts at E/14000088 LOG: consistent recovery state reached at E/15000000 cp: no se puede efectuar `stat' sobre «/usr/local/pgsql/wal_archive/000000010000000E00000015»: No existe el fichero o el directorio LOG: unexpected pageaddr D/EE000000 in log file 14, segment 21, offset 0 cp: no se puede efectuar `stat' sobre «/usr/local/pgsql/wal_archive/000000010000000E00000015»: No existe el fichero o el directorio LOG: streaming replication successfully connected to primary """ another point, what happened with this: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1229549172.4793.105.ca...@ebony.2ndquadrant? Obviously we still have the problem with hash indexes, and in that thread Tom advice was just to document the issue and while that could be fine at least we should be emitting better messages, consider this one that i got on the standby server (where 4658650 is the oid of a hash index): """ mic=# explain analyze select * from tt1 where col1 = 5000; ERROR: could not read block 0 in file "base/21958/4658650": read only 0 of 8192 bytes """ -- Atentamente, Jaime Casanova Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas Guayaquil - Ecuador Cel. +59387171157 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
