From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
---|---|
To: | <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>,<icub3d(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block |
Date: | 2005-11-17 18:01:13 |
Message-ID: | 437C710902000025000007BF@gwmta.wicourts.gov |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
I'm not an expert on that, but it seems reasonable to me that the
page pool would free space as the I/O system caught up with
the load. Also, I'm going on what was said by Qingqing and
in one of the pages he referenced:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;274310
-Kevin
>>> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> >>>
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> None of this seems material, however. It's pretty clear that the
> problem was exhaustion of the Windows page pool.
> ...
> If we don't want to tell Windows users to make highly technical
> changes to the Windows registry in order to use PostgreSQL,
> it does seem wise to use retries, as has already been discussed
> on this thread.
Would a simple retry loop actually help? It's not clear to me how
persistent such a failure would be.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2005-11-17 18:56:21 | Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-17 17:51:39 | Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-17 18:29:29 | Re: Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-17 17:51:39 | Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block |