relation 71478240 deleted while still in use on 8.1
I got :
2007-03-21 20:56:17 CET ERROR: relation 71478240 deleted while still
in use
2007-03-21 20:56:17 CET ERROR: relation 71478240 deleted while still
in use
2007-03-21 20:56:17 CET ERROR: relation 71478240 deleted while still
in use
on 8.1.8 my production server here.
some inserts/updates, selects, and pg_dump was running.
there's a chance cluster was running in http://dupa.privatepaste.com/
d317KYXt5n
It is repeatable, if I run pg_dump. Guess that has something to do,
with slowing down db server - and some race cond occurs.
Any ideas ?
should I add it as a bug ? or perhaps someone already knows about
that kinda issue
--
Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
C/C++ freelance for hire
Grzegorz Jaskiewicz wrote:
I got :
2007-03-21 20:56:17 CET ERROR: relation 71478240 deleted while still in
use
2007-03-21 20:56:17 CET ERROR: relation 71478240 deleted while still in
use
2007-03-21 20:56:17 CET ERROR: relation 71478240 deleted while still in
useon 8.1.8 my production server here.
some inserts/updates, selects, and pg_dump was running.
there's a chance cluster was running in
http://dupa.privatepaste.com/d317KYXt5nIt is repeatable, if I run pg_dump. Guess that has something to do, with
slowing down db server - and some race cond occurs.
Any ideas ?
should I add it as a bug ? or perhaps someone already knows about that
kinda issue
Which transaction gets the error, pg_dump or the one you copied to that
web page? Is there anything else running? How often does it happen,
always? Can you reduce it to a self-contained test case that doesn't
require dblink?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <gj@pointblue.com.pl> writes:
should I add it as a bug ?
Only if you can reproduce it in 8.2 --- what it looks like to me is a
relcache-opening race condition, which is (believed) fixed in 8.2 and
is not feasible to fix in older branches.
regards, tom lane
On Mar 21, 2007, at 11:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <gj@pointblue.com.pl> writes:
should I add it as a bug ?
Only if you can reproduce it in 8.2
okie dokie, I am moving the DB onto 8.2 next week (120M of rows, and
8.2 does sorting much faster).
--
Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
C/C++ freelance for hire
okay, I got it. The main reason behind it - is that I do drop table
in transaction. Every 10 minutes. So during that period, when
'replication' is running - the thing becomes unstable, and this error
can appear.
--
Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
C/C++ freelance for hire