Re: warm standby resume and take online problems

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Michal Bicz wrote:

> Now it is saying constantly in log :
> 2009-11-04 04:57:39 PST : ERROR:  XX000: xlog flush request 2FB/28CE63A8 is not satisfied --- flushed only to 2FB/8FFEA60
> 2009-11-04 04:57:39 PST : CONTEXT:  writing block 874937 of relation 1663/20863/21548
> 2009-11-04 04:57:39 PST : LOCATION:  XLogFlush, xlog.c:1865
> 2009-11-04 04:57:39 PST : WARNING:  58030: could not write block 874937 of 1663/20863/21548
> 2009-11-04 04:57:39 PST : DETAIL:  Multiple failures --- write error may be permanent.
> 2009-11-04 04:57:39 PST : LOCATION:  AbortBufferIO, bufmgr.c:2129

I think you can run into this if disk space on the xlog drive fills up,
which is easy to do with complicated WAL shipping setups if you're not
careful. You might want to double-check that, and check for general disk
I/O errors too. A write error at this point is kind of odd even if you
abused recovery a bit leading up to here. This might be a full disk or a
bad block on the xlog drive instead of something more complicated.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
>From pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org Thu Nov 5 00:24:08 2009
Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183])
by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0F6E6326D1
for <pgsql-general-postgresql(dot)org(at)mail(dot)postgresql(dot)org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:24:08 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 68846-02
for <pgsql-general-postgresql(dot)org(at)mail(dot)postgresql(dot)org>;
Thu, 5 Nov 2009 04:24:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A1A66325E5
for <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:24:00 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl(at)localhost [127.0.0.1])
by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id nA54NxR0010871;
Wed, 4 Nov 2009 23:23:59 -0500 (EST)
To: silly8888 <silly8888(at)gmail(dot)com>
cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: error caused by FOREIGN KEY on composite type
In-reply-to: <3c8f9f940911041632y4f3c91d0v20bfb1a5743aeb6b(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
References: <3c8f9f940911041632y4f3c91d0v20bfb1a5743aeb6b(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
Comments: In-reply-to silly8888 <silly8888(at)gmail(dot)com>
message dated "Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:32:05 -0500"
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:23:59 -0500
Message-ID: <10870(dot)1257395039(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.185 tagged_above=-10 required=5
tests=BAYES_40=-0.185
X-Spam-Level:
X-Archive-Number: 200911/164
X-Sequence-Number: 155093

silly8888 <silly8888(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> create type mytype as (x integer, y integer);

> create table foo(
> a mytype primary key,
> b integer
> );

> create table bar(
> a mytype references foo
> );

While that probably ought to work, is there a really good reason that
you're not doing this with a conventional two-column primary key and
foreign key? The composite type is going to be exceedingly inefficient,
not to mention not portable to other DBMSes.

regards, tom lane