From: | Mikko Partio <mpartio(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: could not truncate directory "pg_subtrans": apparent wraparound |
Date: | 2010-05-24 05:46:42 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTilSLidcJIl8feLS9bMFoGdpq0noOffO21o8RTyo@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Mikko Partio <mpartio(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > got the following line at postgresql log:
>
> > May 16 01:17:35 xxx postgres[25550]: [1-1] LOG: could not truncate
> > directory "pg_subtrans": apparent wraparound
>
> > PostgreSQL 9.0beta1 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc
> (GCC)
> > 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-46), 64-bit
>
> Where did this beta1 installation come from --- was it freshly initdb'd
> under 9.0, or did you use pg_upgrade on a pre-existing database that had
> been around for awhile? It strikes me that the recently identified bug
> in pg_upgrade about not fixing the datfrozenxid of template0 might
> possibly explain this. You'd need to have upgraded an installation that
> was at least a couple billion transactions old to hit that bug.
>
It was freshly initdb'd with beta1 binaries, the contents were loded from a
pg_dump file. The number of transactions is very small, we're talking about
thousands (not billions). This database is the master of a hot standby
installation, if that matters.
Regards
Mikko
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Eduardo Sá dos Reis | 2010-05-24 12:01:15 | Fw: Problems whit role and privileges |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-23 18:02:40 | Re: could not truncate directory "pg_subtrans": apparent wraparound |