From: | hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PgSql General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 9.1.11 - many backends in "semtimedop" syscall |
Date: | 2014-03-10 15:32:43 |
Message-ID: | 20140310153243.GA30595@depesz.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 06:03:54PM +0100, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 12:02:50PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com> writes:
> > > I didn't have a chance to do it. Can try if there is a way to get trace
> > > *without* making core (sorry, my c/gdb knowledge is very, very limited).
> >
> > Sure, you just attach to the process:
> >
> > $ gdb /path/to/postgres PID-of-process
> > gdb> bt
> > gdb> quit
> >
> > This is usually preferable to forcing a core dump.
>
> Thank you. If the problem will strike again, I will do it on all (or
> most, depending how fast I can make it) backends.
The problem did happen again, and we were able to find a fix (I think).
For some reason we had a table with over 50000 (yes, 50 thousand)
indexes on it. This table was a bucardo internals table, so maybe it was
something in bucardo (we are using it to migrate hundreds of tables to
another machine, so maybe it has something to do with it.
Anyway - after removing obsolete indexes there - the problem is gone.
Best regards,
depesz
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thom Brown | 2014-03-10 15:57:08 | Re: 9.1.11 - many backends in "semtimedop" syscall |
Previous Message | Tim Kane | 2014-03-10 15:26:52 | Re: Playing with 9.4devel - unnest |