X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0334511F68FA for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 01:13:58 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09971-03 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 01:13:56 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (server227.ethosmedia.com [209.128.84.227]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B76F11F68EC for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 01:13:56 -0400 (AST) X-EthosMedia-Virus-Scanned: no infections found Received: from [63.195.55.98] (account josh@agliodbs.com HELO spooky.sf.agliodbs.com) by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 9185087; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:16:53 -0800 From: Josh Berkus Organization: Aglio Database Solutions To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Database possible corruption , unsolvable mystery Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:14:27 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 Cc: "Eric Lauzon" , "stef" , "Richard Huxton" References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200603292114.27866.josh@agliodbs.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.105 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.105] X-Spam-Score: 0.105 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/602 X-Sequence-Number: 18039 Eric, > Thank you , this might be a good solution , but we have a bigger upgrade > comming for 8.1.x later on, > but considering that other things out of our hands might occur , we > might seriously look into it after fixing > the current problems :) [because we dont think that upgrading right now > will magicly fix the problem we are having.] It probably won't, but it will prevent a re-occurance before you get around to the 8.1 upgrade. How much time have you wasted on this issue already, an issue which might not have occurred if you'd kept up with patch releases? A patch upgrade is what, 5 minutes of downtime? > And on about 10 database [all 7.4.6] it is the first time this occur , > and the symtom is really on one table, considering > a few terabytes of data sparsed accros a few db, we might have been > lucky yet but as of now its the first time > we can see performance hit only on "delete". Well, that would be in line with the issues 7.4.7-7.4.12. All of them require millesecond-timing to hit the bug. You're not likely to see it more than once. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco