""Peter Brant"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> I'm afraid we're in the same category as everyone else with no good way
> to reproduce the bug, but is there anything else we could do if this
> happens again?
>
There is a "Win32 semaphore patch" in the patch list, but we are lack of
evidence to prov
Hi all,
We were bitten by this same bug over the weekend (PG 8.1.3 / Windows
Server 2003). The exact error was:
FATAL: semctl(170688872, 6, SETVAL, 0) failed: A non-blocking socket
operation could not be completed immediately.
The start of the errors corresponded to a nightly "vacuum analyze"
""Brock Peabody"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> Do you think this is a Windows only problem?
>
I am afraid so. We have received 3 reports of this (or quite similar)
problem, all in 8.1/windows. I just noticed that yours is actually an EAGAIN
error, so the loop patch in semctl() doesn't work I gue
> On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> Perhaps you could whittle down your app into a testbed that just sends
> dummy data with about the same timing as the real app?
I think I'm starting to get a better understanding of problem. It looks
like one of the threads is trying to insert a pathological (~1,800,00
"Brock Peabody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Can you reliablly reproduce the problem?
> I can here :). I'm trying to figure out a way for someone to repeat it
> outside my environment but I'm afraid it's got something to do with
> timing. I have 50 threads that are collecting data. If I give
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-bugs-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Qingqing Zhou
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 6:33 AM
> To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #2371: database crashes with semctl failed
> error
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-bugs-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Qingqing Zhou
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 6:33 AM
> To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #2371: database crashes with semctl failed
err
""Brock Peabody"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> FATAL: semctl(167894456, 4, SETVAL, 0) failed: A non-blocking socket
> operation could not be completed immediately.
>
Can you reliablly reproduce the problem? If so, we may come up with a
testing patch to it. We encounter similar problems before b
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 2371
Logged by: Brock Peabody
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.1
Operating system: Windows Server 2003
Description:database crashes with semctl failed error
Details:
The full text of the
