On Jan 20, 2008, at 3:19 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 13:53 -0600, Erik Jones wrote:
Here's the python script I was using to ship to both servers, right
now I'm back to a direct rsync call for my archive_command to sb1.
What's really weird, is that for the two WALs that disapp
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 13:53 -0600, Erik Jones wrote:
> Here's the python script I was using to ship to both servers, right
> now I'm back to a direct rsync call for my archive_command to sb1.
> What's really weird, is that for the two WALs that disappeared, or
> didn't make it, even though
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 13:53 -0600, Erik Jones wrote:
> > Is the History table Insert only? We might use that fact to examine
> > the
> > LSNs of the equivalent blocks on the Primary. If the LSNs are prior to
> > the start of the recovery, as noted in the backup label file of the
> > original bas
On Jan 19, 2008, at 1:24 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
So we definitely have missing data. I think the multi-phase rsync is
definitely suspect and should be avoided until we get to the bottom of
this.
By this, do you mean the way we ran the rsync multiple times before
performing the actual base ba
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 12:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Jan 19, 2008, at 2:26 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> Can you show us the messages, so we can understand the distribution of
> >> the pages?
>
> > All of the warnings are below. For tables that had mult
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 11:28 -0600, Erik Jones wrote:
> All of the warnings are below. For tables that had multiple warnings
> they seem to be for consecutive pages. All of these tables were
> seeing some pretty decent write traffic during the base backup which
> took place Tuesday night.
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 11:28 -0600, Erik Jones wrote:
> If the page_inspect module would work with 8.2 I wouldn't have a
> problem building and using it, I already do that with pg_standby.
> But, with three days of traffic on these table in the production
> server and, having already verifie
Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jan 19, 2008, at 2:26 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Can you show us the messages, so we can understand the distribution of
>> the pages?
> All of the warnings are below. For tables that had multiple warnings
> they seem to be for consecutive pages.
Hmm -
On Jan 19, 2008, at 2:26 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 19:58 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
In any case, 125 different zeroed pages is pretty hard to explain
by such a mechanism (especially if they were scattered rather than
in contiguous clumps).
Can you show us the messages, so we c
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 11:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The page numbers are identical between both systems, so use the
> > contrib/pageinspect get_raw_page() function to record the contents on
> > both systems before they diverge too much. (BTW, the final c
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The page numbers are identical between both systems, so use the
> contrib/pageinspect get_raw_page() function to record the contents on
> both systems before they diverge too much. (BTW, the final commit of
> those tools seems to have removed the docs I wro
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 19:58 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> In any case, 125 different zeroed pages is pretty hard to explain
> by such a mechanism (especially if they were scattered rather than
> in contiguous clumps).
Can you show us the messages, so we can understand the distribution of
the pages?
Ar
On Friday 18 January 2008 18:04, Erik Jones wrote:
> For our primary, er, main, onsite standby server that's also what we
> do. But, this was a co-location to co-location transfer so there was
> no NFS mount, it was a direct rsync to the server at the other co-
> location. For WAL files, I've alr
Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> 2008-01-17 21:47:34 CST 7598 :WARNING: relation "table_name" page
>>> 5728 is uninitialized --- fixing
>>
>> If you do a vacuum on the master, do you get the same warnings?
> /me runs VACUUM VERBOSE on the two tables that would matter.
> Nope. What wo
On Jan 18, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Brian Wipf wrote:
On 18-Jan-08, at 2:32 PM, Erik Jones wrote:
What worries me is, that since I have a verified case of rsync
thinking it had successfully transferred a WAL, the same may have
happened with these files during the base backup. Does that
warning
On 18-Jan-08, at 2:32 PM, Erik Jones wrote:
What worries me is, that since I have a verified case of rsync
thinking it had successfully transferred a WAL, the same may have
happened with these files during the base backup. Does that
warning, in fact, entail that there were catalog entries
On Jan 18, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I recently started up a server created using PITR (exact detail
below) and received about 125 of these type of errors spanning pages
in about 10 different tables:
2008-01-17 21:47:34 CST 7598 :WARNING: rela
Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I recently started up a server created using PITR (exact detail
> below) and received about 125 of these type of errors spanning pages
> in about 10 different tables:
> 2008-01-17 21:47:34 CST 7598 :WARNING: relation "table_name" page
> 5728 is unini
I recently started up a server created using PITR (exact detail
below) and received about 125 of these type of errors spanning pages
in about 10 different tables:
2008-01-17 21:47:34 CST 7598 :WARNING: relation "table_name" page
5728 is uninitialized --- fixing
Looking in the archives I
19 matches
Mail list logo
