Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A7A32E0052 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:06:25 -0300 (ADT) Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 86251-04 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:06:11 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D73F2E007E for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:06:11 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m3HG67xq020826; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:06:07 -0400 (EDT) To: "Mikko Partio" cc: "Pavan Deolasee" , pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: FATAL: could not open relation xxx: No such file or directory In-reply-to: <2ca799770804170859t39a5532x4629953e0ec3a600@mail.gmail.com> References: <2ca799770804090647m759b72f9gf2d49b4bf7cc8bdf@mail.gmail.com> <2ca799770804142336q6422af38me80054c82699d1e2@mail.gmail.com> <2ca799770804170308m367eaea2nc7899198c0b260e0@mail.gmail.com> <2e78013d0804170336j4299161bm3f280fc9b930b474@mail.gmail.com> <2ca799770804170344o65291ce3pa56a2694f7a15bc5@mail.gmail.com> <20021.1208445022@sss.pgh.pa.us> <2ca799770804170859t39a5532x4629953e0ec3a600@mail.gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Mikko Partio" message dated "Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:59:21 +0300" Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:06:07 -0400 Message-ID: <20825.1208448367@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200804/175 X-Sequence-Number: 28939 "Mikko Partio" writes: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think you've got really serious filesystem-level problems. Have you >> tried running any hardware diagnostics? Are you sure you're using a >> stable kernel version? > I run fsck on the filesystem (gfs) -- no problems found. The disks are from > a san and the diagnostic programs say there's nothing wrong. I also have > other db clusters running on different filesystems (also gfs) and I have > never had any problems with them. Some RAM checks wouldn't be out of place either. regards, tom lane