Re: Possible Corrputed shared memory

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: James Sebastian <james(dot)sebastian(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Possible Corrputed shared memory
Date: 2015-08-01 14:40:57
Message-ID: 13061.1438440057@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice

James Sebastian <james(dot)sebastian(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 1 August 2015 at 19:43, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Also, if it took that long to recover, you might have raised the
>> checkpoint interval settings too high.

> I am using the following parameters

> checkpoint_segments = 10 (from OS default 3)
> checkpoint_completion_target = 0.8 (from OS default 0.5)
> archive_mode=on
> archive_timeout=600

[ scratches head... ] It should certainly not have taken very long to
replay 10 WAL segments worth of data. I surmise that the problems
you were having before the shutdown were worse than you thought, ie
checkpoints were failing to complete, probably due to a persistent
I/O error, so that there was a whole lot more than normal to replay
after the last successful checkpoint. Is there any evidence of such
distress in the postmaster log?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-novice by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message James Sebastian 2015-08-01 14:49:34 Re: Possible Corrputed shared memory
Previous Message James Sebastian 2015-08-01 14:34:12 Re: Possible Corrputed shared memory