| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Gauthier, Dave" <dave(dot)gauthier(at)intel(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Database OID xxxxx now seems to belong to "foo" |
| Date: | 2008-03-11 15:31:53 |
| Message-ID: | 21178.1205249513@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> writes:
> Gauthier, Dave wrote:
>>> Trying (and failing) to attach to my DBs. Getting...
>>> database "foo_standby" has disappeared form pg_database
>>> DETAIL: Database OID 2323523 now seems to belong to "foo"
> Hmm - if a shutdown + restart fixed it, I'm wondering if it wasn't just
> a long-lived connection remembering where 2323523 used to point to.
No, it's the "flat file" copy of pg_database that's supplying that
number, and the reason the restart fixed it is that the flat file
is forcibly rebuilt during a restart. What's not quite clear is
why the flat file was wrong.
We've seen this type of failure reported from the field before,
and as far as I recall the triggering condition was transaction ID
wraparound due to lack of vacuuming ... but haven't consumed enough
caffeine this morning to remember details.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2008-03-11 15:37:17 | Re: On defining Perl functions within PLPERL code |
| Previous Message | Gauthier, Dave | 2008-03-11 15:19:27 | Re: Database OID xxxxx now seems to belong to "foo" |