From: | "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [ADMIN] ERROR: could not read block |
Date: | 2005-11-17 14:10:08 |
Message-ID: | dli2v6$if0$1@news.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
""Magnus Hagander"" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> wrote
>
> Seems like we could just retry when we get this failure. The question is
> we need to do a small amount of sleep before we do? Also, we can't just
> retry forever, there has to be some kind of end to it...
> (If you read the SQL kb, it can be read as retrying is the correct
> thing, because the bug in sql was that it didn't retry)
>
Agree on the retry solution. Yes, two important factors are: intervals,
times. I suspect if it is a dedicated server, serveral retry can handle it.
But for a server might running backup together, who knows how long we need.
But in either way, I don't think an endless loop is needed -- at most 3
minutes (since s_lock() does this :-)).
Also, this is a partial solution to the "invalid parameter" win32 IO
problem. There are some other cases like ACESS_VIOLATION error need more
evidence to pin down.
Regards,
Qingqing
P.s. Go to be out of town for several days ...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael D. Sofka | 2005-11-17 14:54:38 | Server Hardware Configuration |
Previous Message | Colton A Smith | 2005-11-17 13:20:12 | fsm allocation |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-11-17 14:11:18 | Re: Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1 |
Previous Message | Michael Paesold | 2005-11-17 14:08:22 | Re: Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1 |