Re: production server down

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: "Hackers (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: production server down
Date: 2004-12-15 17:17:37
Message-ID: 2756.1103131057@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> I don't trust it at all. So does that imply that I should override next
> transaction id and WAL starting address per the manpage?

Yes, override everything there's a switch for. Also check that the
other values shown by pg_controldata look reasonable (the locale
settings are probably the only ones you might get burned on).

>> What if anything have you got in $PGDATA/pg_xlog?
>>
> -rw------- 1 postgres postgres 16777216 Dec 13 15:39 0000016500000077

Um. That's so far from the values shown in pg_control that it's not funny.

This is 7.4, right? I have a crude xlog dump tool that I'll send you
off-list. We should be able to identify the latest checkpoint in the
existing XLOG files, and that will give you something to work with.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Wieck 2004-12-15 17:22:14 Re: bgwriter changes
Previous Message Joe Conway 2004-12-15 17:12:21 Re: production server down