From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Patrick Weimer <Patrick(dot)Weimer(at)dreger(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Could not receive data from client: Unknown winsock error 10061 |
Date: | 2010-02-24 16:18:07 |
Message-ID: | 9837222c1002240818x6c07547dg445a177163afcf6b@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
2010/2/24 Patrick Weimer <Patrick(dot)Weimer(at)dreger(dot)de>:
> Hi,
>
> the error message of the subject is my big problem, log entrys:
>
> 2010-02-24 12:22:25 LOG: XX000: could not receive data from client:
> Unknown winsock error 10061
> 2010-02-24 12:22:25 LOCATION: pq_recvbuf, pqcomm.c:738
> 2010-02-24 12:22:25 LOG: 08P01: unexpected EOF on client connection
> 2010-02-24 12:22:25 LOCATION: SocketBackend, postgres.c:307
>
> After this messages our WebSphere Application Server 6.1.0.9 crashs, with
> Database Timeout.
>
> I spend many time on google and the postgre manual and found some possible
> problem causes, but no one helped me.
10061 is "connection refused". Windows will give this when the client
hangs up the connection. So from the perspective of PostgreSQL, your
appserver closed the connection. Most likely, your appserver crashed
*first*, and that caused the message with postgresql.
If not, my best bet would be some firewall or antivirus software, on
either the db server or the appserver. Do yo uhave any of those
running?
> The following link describes my problem and including a patch, but the
> link seems to be down.
> Post http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2009-07/msg00179.php
> Patch http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2009-07/msg00078.php
A different verison of the shared memory patch has been applied and is
in the current releases of 8.3 and 8.4. If you are sure you are
experiencing that problem, I would suggest you upgrade.
However, that's just the shared memory problem. Which is a secondary
problem to the connection closed one, that prevents the system from
properly restarting after a failure.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-24 16:38:02 | Re: BUG #4921: ltree @> ltree[] operator shouldn't fail if ltree[] is empty |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-24 16:08:19 | Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required? |