On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 02:14:31AM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> They were running a Beta2, or something like that, database and were even
> warned against it by several of us ...
That's probably overstating things a bit, but running betas and CVS snapshots
is asking for trouble and we know what we're doing and why we had to do it.
> to the full release, but, considering the size of Sourceforge, I'm
> doubting it, since its only been a week ... then again, maybe they used
> the crash as an opportunity?
>
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, August Zajonc wrote:
>
> > http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=80610
> >
> > Be interesting to get some more details on this. Sourceforge is one of more
> > visable PG sites out there...
Actually it was beta6 that wigged out and wouldn't start up again.
This is from the PG server log:
The Data Base System is starting up
DEBUG: ReadRecord: invalid magic number 0000 in logfile 49 seg 121 off
9666560
DEBUG: redo done at (49, 2039709660)
FATAL 2: XLogWrite: write request is past end of log
/usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster: Startup proc 577 exited with status 512 -
abort
The biggest mistake we've ever made was upgrading from our very very happy
November 17 pre-beta CVS snapshot to B6 - it was just a nitemare that
hosed literally several times a day until it finally conked out the other day.
7.1 released seems very happy so far on our linux 2.4 kernel. I think
something very subtle was wrong with b6, because it gave us serious problems.
Tim
--
Founder - PHPBuilder.com / Geocrawler.com
Lead Developer - SourceForge
VA Linux Systems