BUG #8680: Fix initialization of pg_clog and pg_subtrans during hot standby startup

Started by Nonameover 12 years ago2 messagesbugs
Jump to latest
#1Noname
launchpad@maletin.de

The following bug has been logged on the website:

Bug reference: 8680
Logged by: Martin von Oertzen
Email address: launchpad@maletin.de
PostgreSQL version: 9.2.4
Operating system: ubuntu 12.04.3 LTS
Description:

A table has a primary key.
We use pg_basebackup to start a
streaming replication server.
after a trigger, this standby is
used as master and the primary key
is shown as valid and there are no
duplicates.

alter table t add column c int4 not null default 0;
FEHLER: konnte Unique Index »t_pkey« nicht erstellen
DETAIL: Schlüssel (username, authority)=(malu001, ROLE_STEUER) ist doppelt
vorhanden.

It looks like a bug that is fixed in
9.2.6, but i can't believe, that this
bug was introduced in 9.2.5, because we
can reproduce this with 9.2.4.
But only with massive work while the
basebackup is in progress.

--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs

#2Andres Freund
andres@anarazel.de
In reply to: Noname (#1)
Re: BUG #8680: Fix initialization of pg_clog and pg_subtrans during hot standby startup

Hi,

On 2013-12-13 10:50:12 +0000, launchpad@maletin.de wrote:

A table has a primary key.
We use pg_basebackup to start a
streaming replication server.
after a trigger, this standby is
used as master and the primary key
is shown as valid and there are no
duplicates.

alter table t add column c int4 not null default 0;
FEHLER: konnte Unique Index �t_pkey� nicht erstellen
DETAIL: Schl�ssel (username, authority)=(malu001, ROLE_STEUER) ist doppelt
vorhanden.

It looks like a bug that is fixed in
9.2.6, but i can't believe, that this
bug was introduced in 9.2.5, because we
can reproduce this with 9.2.4.
But only with massive work while the
basebackup is in progress.

I don't think this is necessarily related. How are you performing the
base backup? I guess you're not using pg_basebackup?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs