Обсуждение: SI buffer overflow, cache state reset
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 23:58:03 +0200, Johann Zuschlag wrote: During restore I found following messages in the log: ->DEBUG: SendSharedInvalidMessage: SI buffer overflow ->DEBUG: ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages: cache state reset (DEBUG: copy: line 4762, XLogWrite: new log file created - consider increasing WAL_FILES) (DEBUG: recycled transaction log file 000000000000000D) (DEBUG: recycled transaction log file 000000000000000E) ->DEBUG: ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages: cache state reset ->DEBUG: ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages: cache state reset ->DEBUG: ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages: cache state reset Never saw them before. It would be of some help to have a table of certain error messages. Couldn't find any. The database seems to be ok. What is the SI-Buffer? My Test-box has got just 64MB, database (dumped) 22MB, shared_buffers=default regards Johann Zuschlag zuschlag@online.de
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 01:56:52 +0200 "Johann Zuschlag" <zuschlag@online.de> wrote: > On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 23:58:03 +0200, Johann Zuschlag wrote: > > During restore I found following messages in the log: Your last message was just 26 hours ago, why not wait for people to answer you? If you're desperate to get an answer, the first thing I would do is search the list archives (which has numerous answers to your question). > ->DEBUG: SendSharedInvalidMessage: SI buffer overflow > ->DEBUG: ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages: cache state reset > (DEBUG: copy: line 4762, XLogWrite: new log file created - consider increasing WAL_FILES) You might want to consider following this advice... > (DEBUG: recycled transaction log file 000000000000000D) > (DEBUG: recycled transaction log file 000000000000000E) > ->DEBUG: ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages: cache state reset > ->DEBUG: ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages: cache state reset > ->DEBUG: ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages: cache state reset > > Never saw them before. It would be of some help to have a table of > certain error messages. Couldn't find any. The database seems to be ok. These are routine -- it's nothing to worry about. The fact that it is logged at level "DEBUG" indicates that it is informational, not an error message. Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <neilconway@rogers.com> PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
Neil Conway wrote: > On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 01:56:52 +0200 > "Johann Zuschlag" <zuschlag@online.de> wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 23:58:03 +0200, Johann Zuschlag wrote: > > > > During restore I found following messages in the log: > > Your last message was just 26 hours ago, why not wait for people > to answer you? If you're desperate to get an answer, the first thing > I would do is search the list archives (which has numerous answers > to your question). > > > ->DEBUG: SendSharedInvalidMessage: SI buffer overflow > > ->DEBUG: ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages: cache state reset > > (DEBUG: copy: line 4762, XLogWrite: new log file created - consider increasing WAL_FILES) > > You might want to consider following this advice... > > > (DEBUG: recycled transaction log file 000000000000000D) > > (DEBUG: recycled transaction log file 000000000000000E) > > ->DEBUG: ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages: cache state reset > > ->DEBUG: ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages: cache state reset > > ->DEBUG: ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages: cache state reset > > > > Never saw them before. It would be of some help to have a table of > > certain error messages. Couldn't find any. The database seems to be ok. > > These are routine -- it's nothing to worry about. The fact that > it is logged at level "DEBUG" indicates that it is informational, > not an error message. Actually, in 7.3, they will not even show because of the new GUC server_min_messages levels. I see it now at DEBUG3, which will not appear in the logs unless you set 7.3 server_min_messages = debug3 or lower. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 21:10:00 -0400, Neil Conway wrote: >Your last message was just 26 hours ago, why not wait for people >to answer you? If you're desperate to get an answer, the first thing >I would do is search the list archives (which has numerous answers >to your question). Usually I don't do that. I hope the list accepts my excuse. But I had the impression it got lost. (In fact, it didn't) Usually I search the archives first. The problem with the list archives is, that they got quite slow in the last months. In fact, I don't get anything out anymore. Anything I can do to improve it? New hardware? regards Johann Zuschlag zuschlag@online.de