On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 02:25:41AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marcin Waldowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ok, that's the end of the story :) My workmate has confirmed that during
> > night test PostgreSQL worked perfectly :)
>
> That fix was Obviously Necessary even without testing -- you're b
Marcin Waldowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was thinking that this fix will be included in 8.2.4 :) Now I know
> that it's too late (8.2.4 is released). Now I trying to find what
> conditions causes to realease new version of PostgreSQL (with fixes).
> Does any document exist about that?
N
Tom Lane wrote:
Marcin Waldowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ok, that's the end of the story :) My workmate has confirmed that during
night test PostgreSQL worked perfectly :)
That fix was Obviously Necessary even without testing -- you're being
too conservative about not applying it,
Marcin Waldowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, that's the end of the story :) My workmate has confirmed that during
> night test PostgreSQL worked perfectly :)
That fix was Obviously Necessary even without testing -- you're being
too conservative about not applying it, Magnus.
Magnus,
I have applied your patch on 8.2.3 source and built it in mingw
environment (with default settings). After 3 hours of performance test
nothing happened, log is clear :) In previous test error occur always
within first hour (most often within first 20 minutes), so I can
initialy conf
Marcin Waldowski wrote:
>
>> The following bug has been logged online:
>>
>> Bug reference: 3242
>> Logged by: Marcin Waldowski
>> Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> PostgreSQL version: 8.2.3 and 8.2.1
>> Operating system: Windows XP SP2
>> Description:FATAL: could no
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 3242
Logged by: Marcin Waldowski
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.2.3 and 8.2.1
Operating system: Windows XP SP2
Description:FATAL: could not unlock semaphore: error code 298
Details:
Marcin Waldowski wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
No, it's definitly the right primitive. But we're creating it with a
max
count of 1.
>>> That's definitely wrong. There are at least three rea
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
No, it's definitly the right primitive. But we're creating it with a max
count of 1.
That's definitely wrong. There are at least three reasons for a PG
process's semaphore to be signaled (heavywe
Magnus Hagander wrote:
The effective max count on Unixen is typically in the thousands,
and I'd suggest the same on Windows unless there's some efficiency
reason to keep it small (in which case, maybe ten would do).
AFAIK there's no problem with huge numbers (it takes an int32, and the
do
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> How is it possible for a semaphore to be unlocked "too many times"?
>>> It's supposed to be a running counter of the net V's minus P's, and
>>> yes it had better be able to count higher than one. Have we chosen
>>
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> How is it possible for a semaphore to be unlocked "too many times"?
>> It's supposed to be a running counter of the net V's minus P's, and
>> yes it had better be able to count higher than one. Have we chosen
>> the wrong Windows pri
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 09:20:05AM +0200, Marcin Waldowski wrote:
I've looked at the code there, and can't find a clear problem. One way it
could happen is if the actual PGSemaphoreUnlock() is called once more than
need
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 09:20:05AM +0200, Marcin Waldowski wrote:
>>> I've looked at the code there, and can't find a clear problem. One way it
>>> could happen is if the actual PGSemaphoreUnlock() is called once more than
>>> needed.
> CC:ing to hack
Marcin Waldowski wrote:
Doesn't the postmaster restart all other backends due to the FATAL
error?
Are you saying that you can no longer make new connections to the
server,
or is the problem coming from that the aplpication doesn't like that the
server kicked out all connections?
No, we a
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Hmm, PGSemaphoreUnlock() actually ignore this error, only log that it
happens.
No. It does ereport(FATAL) which terminates the backend.
Oh, now I see, sorry :) Indeed on this one connection we receive
exception "FATAL: could not unlock semaphore", after that r
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:09:39AM +0200, Marcin Waldowski wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >I've looked at the code there, and can't find a clear problem. One way it
> >could happen is if the actual PGSemaphoreUnlock() is called once more than
> >needed.
> >
> >CC:ing to hackers for this questio
Magnus Hagander wrote:
I've looked at the code there, and can't find a clear problem. One way it
could happen is if the actual PGSemaphoreUnlock() is called once more than
needed.
CC:ing to hackers for this question:
Any chance that's happening? If this happens with SysV semaphores, will
they
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 09:20:05AM +0200, Marcin Waldowski wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I've made some analysis of PostgreSQL code. It looks like void
> PGSemaphoreUnlock(PGSemaphore sema) from backend\port\win32_sema.c was
> executed one time more than needed.
Certainly looks that way.
I've looked at
Hello.
I've made some analysis of PostgreSQL code. It looks like void
PGSemaphoreUnlock(PGSemaphore sema) from backend\port\win32_sema.c was
executed one time more than needed.
Error code 298 means "Too many posts were made to a semaphore":
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms681382.as
We've made some tests on Linux and it seems like it never happen on this
platform, but we use 8.1, not 8.2.
select version()
PostgreSQL 8.1.3 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC
i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc (GCC) 3.4.5 (Gentoo 3.4.5, ssp-3.4.5-1.0, pie-8.7.9)
Regards, Marcin
Marcin Waldowski wrot
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 3242
Logged by: Marcin Waldowski
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.2.3 and 8.2.1
Operating system: Windows XP SP2
Description:FATAL: could not unlock semaphore: error code 298
Details:
Hel
22 matches
Mail list logo
