X-Original-To: pgsql-admin-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 356173A3D2D for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:53:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 87972-03 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:53:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF6113A3D09 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:53:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iA9GrQW9020663; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:53:26 -0500 (EST) To: "Medora Schauer" Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: server crash In-reply-to: <906E2C446A276048A1BE283F17BCB12C01BA8E2B@encounter.fairind.fairfield.com> References: <906E2C446A276048A1BE283F17BCB12C01BA8E2B@encounter.fairind.fairfield.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Medora Schauer" message dated "Tue, 09 Nov 2004 10:01:36 -0600" Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 11:53:26 -0500 Message-ID: <20662.1100019206@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200411/80 X-Sequence-Number: 15465 "Medora Schauer" writes: > PG: 7.3 I hope you meant "7.3.8", or at least something later than original 7.3 ;-) > PANIC: link from /data/database/pg_xlog/00000001000000D9 to /data/database/pg_xlog/00000001000000E1 (initialization of log file 1, segment 225) failed: No such file or directory AFAICS, the only way that that message could come out is if a readdir() scan of /data/database/pg_xlog found a file named 00000001000000D9 but then an immediately following link() call didn't find it. This suggests filesystem corruption to me; it might be worth running fsck. Also check whether your kernel is reasonably up to date, as it could be a kernel bug. The fact that the subsequent startup process failed again in just the same way seems to eliminate most of the theories that would suggest it's a Postgres bug. In particular, it isn't a race condition such as two processes trying to delete the same file at the same time, because the recovery startup sequence does no parallel processing. regards, tom lane