[GENERAL] How is autovacuum affected by a change in year.

2015-02-26 Thread Hanns Hartman
Hi, I am running postgres 8.3.17 on a RedHat linux derivative using a mips64 architecture. I've recently noticed some odd autovacuum behavior. Recently we've had some systems deployed with the system clock set to the year 2016. Postgres was installed with that date and things were fine until a

Re: [GENERAL] How is autovacuum affected by a change in year.

2015-02-26 Thread Hanns Hartman
Hi Tom, Yep I know its out of date but thank you for replying anyways :) I retried my test with the autovacuum logs turned on and confirmed that a postgresql restart fix the issue. thanks your your help! -HH On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Hanns Hartman writes: >

[GENERAL] Trying to understand postgres crash

2011-12-21 Thread Hanns Hartman
Hi, I'm running postgres 8.3.17 on a redhat linux mips derivative and I've observed a postgres crash and the subsequent messages in my postgres debug log. 2011-12-21 19:08:49 UTC - LOG: shutting down 2011-12-21 19:08:49 UTC - PANIC: concurrent transaction log activity while database system is s

Re: [GENERAL] Trying to understand postgres crash

2011-12-22 Thread Hanns Hartman
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Hanns Hartman wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm running postgres 8.3.17 on a redhat linux mips derivative and I've >> observed a postgres crash and the subsequent messages in my po

Re: [GENERAL] Trying to understand postgres crash

2011-12-22 Thread Hanns Hartman
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Hanns Hartman writes: >> I'm running postgres 8.3.17 on a redhat linux mips derivative and I've >> observed a postgres crash and the subsequent messages in my postgres >> debug log. > >> 2011-12-21 19:08

Re: [GENERAL] Trying to understand postgres crash

2011-12-22 Thread Hanns Hartman
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Hanns Hartman writes: >> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Best guess is that something sent the background writer process a >>> SIGUSR2 signal. > >> One other thought, my current se