Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] query log corrupted-looking entries

2007-05-29 Thread Ed L.
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 1:04 pm, George Pavlov wrote: > Hoping to resurrect this thread. I am seeing more and more of > this as the database gets more usage and it really messes up > query log analysis. > > > A quick summary: When I posted this was getting corrupted > query log entries. I still am

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] query log corrupted-looking entries

2007-05-23 Thread George Pavlov
Hoping to resurrect this thread. I am seeing more and more of this as the database gets more usage and it really messes up query log analysis. A quick summary: When I posted this was getting corrupted query log entries. I still am. They look like this (the problem line + one line before and after

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] query log corrupted-looking entries

2006-10-18 Thread Magnus Hagander
> > > Should work fine on Windows. fileno() is deprecated however, with > > > the following comment: > > > C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio > > > 8\VC\INCLUDE\stdio.h(688) : see > > > declaration of 'fileno' > > > Message: 'The POSIX name for this item is deprecated. > >

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] query log corrupted-looking entries

2006-10-18 Thread Tom Lane
"George Pavlov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> It'd be interesting to verify whether it's the same on >> George's machine though. > Let me know how to test this. Identify the PID of one of your active backends (from "ps" or by looking in pg_stat_activity), and then run strace -p backend-

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] query log corrupted-looking entries

2006-10-18 Thread George Pavlov
> the behavior. It'd be interesting to verify whether it's the same on > George's machine though. Let me know how to test this. (Please do a "for dummies" version -- I am not sure I can figure it out from the thread even though someone else might be able to.) ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] query log corrupted-looking entries

2006-10-18 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > I checked around with some kernel/glibc gurus in Red Hat, and the > consensus seemed to be that we'd be better off to bypass fprintf() and > just send message strings to stderr using write() --- ie, instead of > elog.c doing > fprintf(stderr, "%s", buf.data); > do >

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] query log corrupted-looking entries

2006-10-18 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: > "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Should work fine on Windows. fileno() is deprecated however, with the > > following comment: > > C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio > > 8\VC\INCLUDE\stdio.h(688) : see > > declaration of 'fileno' > > Message:

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] query log corrupted-looking entries

2006-10-18 Thread Tom Lane
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Should work fine on Windows. fileno() is deprecated however, with the > following comment: > C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio > 8\VC\INCLUDE\stdio.h(688) : see > declaration of 'fileno' > Message: 'The POSIX name for this item

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] query log corrupted-looking entries

2006-10-18 Thread Magnus Hagander
> >> Hmm. If the messages are less than PIPE_BUF bytes long > (4096 bytes > >> on > >> Linux) then the writes are supposed to be atomic. > > > Some of them involve long messages (>4K), but there are > many that do > > not (like the ones I had posted at the start of this thread). > > I checke

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] query log corrupted-looking entries

2006-10-18 Thread Albe Laurenz
Tom Lane wrote: > I checked around with some kernel/glibc gurus in Red Hat, and the > consensus seemed to be that we'd be better off to bypass fprintf() and > just send message strings to stderr using write() --- ie, instead of > elog.c doing > > fprintf(stderr, "%s", buf.data); > > d

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] query log corrupted-looking entries

2006-10-17 Thread Tom Lane
"George Pavlov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Hmm. If the messages are less than PIPE_BUF bytes long (4096 bytes on >> Linux) then the writes are supposed to be atomic. > Some of them involve long messages (>4K), but there are many that do not > (like the ones I had posted at the start of this t