Обсуждение: could not truncate directory "pg_subtrans": apparent wraparound

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 08:40:04AM +0300, Mikko Partio wrote:
>
> May 16 01:17:35 xxx postgres[25550]: [1-1] LOG:  could not truncate
> directory "pg_subtrans": apparent wraparound
>

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2007-06/msg01050.php

Mikko Partio <mpartio@gmail.com> writes:
> got the following line at postgresql log:
> May 16 01:17:35 xxx postgres[25550]: [1-1] LOG:  could not truncate
> directory "pg_subtrans": apparent wraparound

What's in $PGDATA/pg_subtrans?

            regards, tom lane

Excerpts from Mikko Partio's message of jue may 20 00:39:00 -0400 2010:
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Ray Stell <stellr@cns.vt.edu> wrote:

> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2007-06/msg01050.php
>
> Browsing through that thread I can see that I have similar symptoms:
>
> $ pg_controldata | grep Multi
> Latest checkpoint's NextMultiXactId:  1
> Latest checkpoint's NextMultiOffset:  0

I don't remember why I insisted talking about multixacts in that thread,
but seeing that both the poster in the 2007 thread and you have problems
with the pg_subtrans directory, not pg_multixact, these "symptoms"
actually mean nothing at all.  pg_subtrans and pg_multixact are
unrelated.

I wonder if there's an off-by-one bug in SimpleLruTruncate, or perhaps
the "cutoffPage" value passed by the caller is bogus once every ten blue
moons ... hmm, it comes from GetOldestXmin ...

Being more explicit in that error message (logging the cutoffPage) would
help figuring out what's going on.
--

Mikko Partio <mpartio@gmail.com> writes:
> got the following line at postgresql log:

> May 16 01:17:35 xxx postgres[25550]: [1-1] LOG:  could not truncate
> directory "pg_subtrans": apparent wraparound

>  PostgreSQL 9.0beta1 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC)
> 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-46), 64-bit

Where did this beta1 installation come from --- was it freshly initdb'd
under 9.0, or did you use pg_upgrade on a pre-existing database that had
been around for awhile?  It strikes me that the recently identified bug
in pg_upgrade about not fixing the datfrozenxid of template0 might
possibly explain this.  You'd need to have upgraded an installation that
was at least a couple billion transactions old to hit that bug.

            regards, tom lane

On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 08:46 +0300, Mikko Partio wrote:

> It was freshly initdb'd with beta1 binaries, the contents were loded
> from a pg_dump file. The number of transactions is very small, we're
> talking about thousands (not billions). This database is the master of
> a hot standby installation, if that matters.

Have you ever performed a switchover operation? If you've never run an
extended recovery on that server, its less likely to be anything HS
related.

Are you running any special hot standby parameters?

--
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com

On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 09:01 +0300, Mikko Partio wrote:

> With this database instance (beta1 initdb'd) I have not made
> failovers. I don't think I have any special hot standby parameters
> either.

OK, so that pretty much rules out HS as a direct cause.

> Non-default hot standby related configuration options (master
> database):
>
>
> wal_level = hot_standby         # minimal, archive, or hot_standby
> archive_mode = on               # allows archiving to be done
> archive_command = '/postgresql/bin/archive_wal.sh "%p" "%f"'
>    # command to use to archive a logfile segment
> archive_timeout = 3600          # force a logfile segment switch after
> this
> hot_standby = off               # allows queries during recovery
> max_wal_senders = 3             # max number of walsender processes
> wal_keep_segments = 10          # in logfile segments, 16MB each; 0
> disables

--
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com