Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Magnus Hagander
Тема Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block
Дата
Msg-id 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE92E86E@algol.sollentuna.se
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>)
Список pgsql-admin
> >>> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>  >>>
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> > None of this seems material, however.  It's pretty clear that the
> > problem was exhaustion of the Windows page pool.
> > ...
> > If we don't want to tell Windows users to make highly technical
> > changes to the Windows registry in order to use PostgreSQL, it does
> > seem wise to use retries, as has already been discussed on this
> > thread.
>
> Would a simple retry loop actually help?  It's not clear to
> me how persistent such a failure would be.

(Not sure why I didn't get Toms mail - lists acting up again? Anyway, I
got Kevins response, but am responding primarily to Tom)

The way I read it, a delay should help. It's basically running out of
kernel buffers, and we just delay, somebody else (another process, or an
IRQ handler, or whatever) should get finished with their I/O, free up
the buffer, and let us have it. Looking around a bit I see several
references that you should retry on it, but nothing in the API docs.
I do think it's probably a good idea to do a short delay before retrying
- at least to yield the CPU for one slice. That would greatly increase
the probability of someone else finishing their I/O...

That's how I read it, but I'm not 100% sure.

//Magnus

В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Kevin Grittner"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block
Следующее
От: "Magnus Hagander"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] ERROR: could not read block