SEO
vBulletin Search Engine Optimization
| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
04-10-2008, 10:44 AM
| ||||
| ||||
 Re: BUG #3245: PANIC: failed to re-find shared lock object > Von: Tom Lane [mailto:...] > Gesendet: Freitag, 20. April 2007 18:14 > An: Dorochevsky,Michel > Cc: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org > Betreff: Re: AW: [BUGS] BUG #3245: PANIC: failed to re-find shared lock object > > "Dorochevsky,Michel" <michel (dot) dorochevsky (at) softcon (dot) de> writes: > > Two runs of the same test program fail at different places, so it seems to > > be dependent of the timing. Two log files are available at > > http://www.dorochevsky.de/infos/post...-20_145638.zip > > http://www.dorochevsky.de/infos/post...-20_144006.zip > > Hm, could you try again with log_line_prefix set to '%m %p ' rather than > just %t? It's too hard to guess which messages are coming from which > backend ... > > regards, tom lane Took me a number of tries, here it is http://www.dorochevsky.de/infos/pg_l...04-21_1811.zip Best Regards -- Michel      |
|
04-10-2008, 10:44 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: BUG #3245: PANIC: failed to re-find shared lock ob ject Question: do you have any leftover files in $PGDATA/pg_twophase ? I'm wondering why the log contains no warning messages about stale two-phase state files. It looks to me like the system should have found the two-phase file still there upon restart, but the transaction should have been marked already committed. BTW, can you tell whether the failing transactions actually were committed --- are their effects still visible in the database? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend |
 |
« BUG #3246: User "name" could not be created.
|
Re: BUG #3245: PANIC: failed to re-find shared lock ob ject »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:20 PM.
