Re: PG 8.0.4, Centos and 64 bit

Hi,

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Joe Conway wrote:

>> We currently don't have a x86_64 server that runs RHEL 4. That's why there
>> are no RPMs for that arch (I've uploaded RPMs for many platforms BTW). If
>> someone wants to assist us to build RPMs for that platform, please contact
>> me. We'll give you all the necesarry information.
>
> I will have several RHEL 4 servers by early November, and will be building
> RPMs for them. I'll let you know when I have RPMs ready.

Great news. Thanks Joe.

--
Devrim GUNDUZ
Kivi Bilişim Teknolojileri - http://www.kivi.com.tr
devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org
>From pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org Tue Oct 18 04:18:30 2005
X-Original-To: pgsql-general-postgresql(dot)org(at)localhost(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BA17D83B9
for <pgsql-general-postgresql(dot)org(at)localhost(dot)postgresql(dot)org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 04:18:29 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 68193-04
for <pgsql-general-postgresql(dot)org(at)localhost(dot)postgresql(dot)org>;
Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:18:26 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from web52912.mail.yahoo.com (web52912.mail.yahoo.com [206.190.49.22])
by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 06FF2D7E76
for <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 04:18:26 -0300 (ADT)
Received: (qmail 82488 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Oct 2005 07:18:24 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
b=lph4y4Xvv8niy2SCHAWch74ozfR16SrARppGiF2WnBiDuELML7DbOSUqvLDjeIs0m6h5XycRva4RFAPI71AZpDSMQ8SPzuLQpStcn8JHkF9XAEYdeRIbblztKOjafYBRrjytoArIoz8abZZT1iNC0gI9OAHfRMK3dV/BnoJ6jjI= ;
Message-ID: <20051018071824(dot)82486(dot)qmail(at)web52912(dot)mail(dot)yahoo(dot)com>
Received: from [67.174.117.34] by web52912.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:18:24 PDT
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: CSN <cool_screen_name90001(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Duplicate primary keys/rows
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
In-Reply-To: <5567(dot)1128976137(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.377 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.126,
DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.374, FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS=0.516, FROM_HAS_ULINE_NUMS=0.361]
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Archive-Number: 200510/1033
X-Sequence-Number: 85262

I don't know if I'm going to get a copy of
pg_filedump. What's the best way to fix this - dump
then restore?

CSN

--- Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> CSN <cool_screen_name90001(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > oid | ctid | xmin | cmin | xmax |
> cmax | id
> >
>
--------+-----------+---------+------+---------+------+-----
> > 125466 | (2672,11) | 1445346 | 0 | 1481020 |
> 0 | 985
> > 125466 | (2745,50) | 1481020 | 0 | 1682425 |
> 2 | 985
>
> Hmm. The fact that the dup rows have the same OID
> indicates pretty
> strongly that they are actually two versions of the
> same row, and
> not two independently inserted rows. Furthermore we
> can see that xact
> 1481020 deleted the first version and inserted the
> second (note I took
> the liberty of rearranging your output to make the
> rows appear in
> chronological order).
>
> So the index hasn't screwed up, exactly; the problem
> is that both rows
> appear as good at the same time. But why?
>
> It's really highly annoying that we can't see the
> contents of the
> infomasks for the rows. Would you be willing to
> grab a copy of
> pg_filedump and dump out these two data pages so we
> can see the
> complete tuple headers?
>
> (If you don't have a compiler then you'd need to
> find a precompiled
> copy of pg_filedump for Windows. I don't know if
> anyone's made one
> available.)
>
> Given that you say the machine has been crashing, my
> bet is that a crash
> caused the loss of pg_clog status for xid 1481020 at
> a time when
> 2745,50's xmin had been marked committed good, but
> 2672,11's xmax had
> not been similarly marked. We have sufficient
> defenses against this
> sort of thing *if the disk drive does not lie about
> write complete*.
> (Unfortunately the vast majority of el-cheapo PCs
> are configured to lie
> with abandon, which means that we can't guarantee
> data consistency
> across power failures on such hardware.) It'd be
> nice to get direct
> confirmation of that theory though.
>
> regards, tom lane
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com