From: | Neil Best <nbest(at)ci(dot)uchicago(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] \copy: unexpected response (4) |
Date: | 2009-08-14 15:39:31 |
Message-ID: | 24973785.post@talk.nabble.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane-2 wrote:
>
> Neil Best <nbest(at)ci(dot)uchicago(dot)edu> writes:
>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> BTW, the "SSL renegotiation failure" bit
>>> suggests that it could have been an OpenSSL bug not a real network
>>> lossage, so you might want to see how up-to-date your openssl libraries
>>> are.
>
>> Thanks for your comments, Tom. The operation seems more reliable if I
>> move the data to the server and do it across a local connection, which
>> I presume does not involve SSL, so that may be the weak link as you
>> surmise. Would you expect the SSL library problem more likely to be
>> on the server or the client, or is it just hard to say?
>
> You're talking like you've found this to be repeatable. Is it?
>
>
It is indeed repeatable, Tom. I was able to perform my \copy batch job
multiple times without error by working over the local connection. I had to
run it many times to iteratively catch all of the type mismatches that had
to be fixed, so I truncated and \copied over 200 tables about 7 times in
this manner. I did not attempt any software upgrades. Any theories?
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%5Ccopy%3A-unexpected-response-%284%29-tp24866027p24973785.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Serge Fonville | 2009-08-14 15:41:54 | Re: Getting database data from the PostgreSQL file system |
Previous Message | Neil Best | 2009-08-14 15:35:26 | Re: [HACKERS] \copy: unexpected response (4) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2009-08-14 15:40:00 | Fwd: TODO: fix priority of ordering of read and write light-weight locks |
Previous Message | Neil Best | 2009-08-14 15:35:26 | Re: [HACKERS] \copy: unexpected response (4) |