From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | Kakoli Sen <kakolis(at)cdacb(dot)ernet(dot)in>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Problem with starting PostgreSQL server 7.4.19 |
Date: | 2008-03-12 06:02:34 |
Message-ID: | 13104.1205301754@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Kakoli Sen wrote:
>> It was running fine initially and the database was lying idle for a
>> few days. Today I looged into the machine and restarted the server by
>> killing the process by 'kill -9 pid'. And then restarted it by
>> 'postmaster -i -D /opt/pgsql/data/'.
>>
> Why did you use `kill -9' ?
Certainly not good practice, but theoretically PG should be proof
against even such deliberate abuse as that.
What seemed odd to me was
>> LOG: database system was interrupted at 2008-03-06 14:15:17 IST
>> LOG: record with incorrect prev-link 1/0 at 0/A4EB08
>> LOG: invalid primary checkpoint record
>> LOG: record with incorrect prev-link 42FD/0 at 0/A4EAC8
>> LOG: invalid secondary checkpoint record
Experimentation shows that a freshly initialized 7.4 database has
WAL locations like this:
Latest checkpoint location: 0/9DFCF0
Prior checkpoint location: 0/9D92C0
so either you'd only ever thrown a few kilobytes of stuff into the DB
or there was something seriously wrong with pg_control to begin with.
I'm wondering about mistaken filesystem restores ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kakoli Sen | 2008-03-12 06:07:21 | Re: Problem with starting PostgreSQL server 7.4.19 |
Previous Message | Blair Bethwaite | 2008-03-12 05:53:07 | SELECT overhead in explicit transaction |