On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > Why is it important to have the original pg_clog files around? Since > the transactions in question are below the freeze horizon, surely the > tuples that involve those transaction have all been visited by vacuum > and thus removed if they were leftover from aborted transactions or > deleted, no? So you could just fill those files with the 0x55 pattern > (signalling "all transactions are committed") and the net result should > be the same. No? > > Forgive me if I'm missing something. I haven't been following this > thread and I'm more than a little tired (but wanted to shoot this today > because I'm gonna be able to, until Monday). > > -- > Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> > The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. > PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Update on the status of the steps we took, which were: - test on a hot standby by bringing it live, running the script, determing the missing clog files, copying them into the live (hot standby) pg_clog dir Now, on the master, copied the same old clog files into the production *master*, ran vacuumdb -a -v -F. The step I should have taken on the master before the vacuumdb -F would have been to run the http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/20110408pg_upgrade_fix script to see if I was missing any clog files on the master. That vacuum freeze step pointed out a clog file, I copied that into the master pg_clog dir, ran the aforementioned script. It didn't fail on any of the clog files this time, so now I am rerunning the vacuum freeze command and hoping like hell it works! If the current run of the vacuum freeze fails, I'll report back. Thanks again for everyone's help. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
