Обсуждение: pg_xlog unbounded growth
Hello,
This email is structured in sections as follows:
1 - Estimating the size of pg_xlog depending on postgresql.conf parameters
2 - Cleaning up pg_xlog using a watchdog script
3 - Mailing list survey of related bugs
4 - Thoughts
We're using PostgreSQL 9.6.6 on a Ubuntu 16.04.3 LTS.
During some database imports(using pg_restore), we're noticing fast
and unbounded growth of pg_xlog up to the point where the
partition(280G in size for us) that stores it fills up and PostgreSQL
shuts down. The error seen in the logs:
2018-01-17 01:46:23.035 CST [41671] LOG: database system was shut down at 2018-01-16 15:49:26 CST
2018-01-17 01:46:23.038 CST [41671] FATAL: could not write to file "pg_xlog/xlogtemp.41671": No space left on
device
2018-01-17 01:46:23.039 CST [41662] LOG: startup process (PID 41671) exited with exit code 1
2018-01-17 01:46:23.039 CST [41662] LOG: aborting startup due to startup process failure
2018-01-17 01:46:23.078 CST [41662] LOG: database system is shut down
The config settings I thought were relevant are these ones (but I'm
also attaching the entire postgresql.conf if there are other ones that
I missed):
wal_level=replica
archive_command='exit 0;'
min_wal_size=2GB
max_wal_size=500MB
checkpoint_completion_target = 0.7
wal_keep_segments = 8
So currently the pg_xlog is growing a lot, and there doesn't seem to
be any way to stop it.
There are some formulas I came across that allow one to compute the
maximum number of WAL allowed in pg_xlog as a function of the
PostgreSQL config parameters.
1.1) Method from 2012 found in [2]
The formula for the upper bound for WAL files in pg_xlog is
(2 + checkpoint_completion_target) * checkpoint_segments + 1
which is
( (2 + 0.7) * (2048/16 * 1/3 ) ) + 1 ~ 116 WAL files
I used the 1/3 because of [6] the shift from checkpoint_segments to
max_wal_size in 9.5 , the relevant quote from the release notes being:
If you previously adjusted checkpoint_segments, the following formula
will give you an approximately equivalent setting:
max_wal_size = (3 * checkpoint_segments) * 16MB
Another way of computing it, also according to [2] is the following
2 * checkpoint_segments + wal_keep_segments + 1
which is (2048/16) + 8 + 1 = 137 WAL files
So far we have two answers, in practice none of them check out, since
pg_xlog grows indefinitely.
1.2) Method from the PostgreSQL internals book
The book [4] says the following:
it could temporarily become up to "3 * checkpoint_segments + 1"
Ok, let's compute this too, it's 3 * (128/3) + 1 = 129 WAL files
This doesn't check out either.
1.3) On the mailing list [3] , I found similar formulas that were seen
previously.
1.4) The post at [5] says max_wal_size is as soft limit and also sets
wal_keep_segments = 0 in order to enforce keeping as little WAL as
possible around. Would this work?
Does wal_keep_segments = 0 turn off WAL recycling? Frankly, I would
rather have WAL not be recycled/reused, and just deleted to keep
pg_xlog below expected size.
Another question is, does wal_level = replica affect the size of
pg_xlog in any way? We have an archive_command that just exits with
exit code 0, so I don't see any reason for the pg_xlog files to not be
cleaned up.
2) Cleaning up pg_xlog using a watchdog script
To get the import done I wrote a script that's actually inspired from
a blog post where the pg_xlog out of disk space problem is
addressed [1]. It periodically reads the last checkpoint's REDO WAL
file, and deletes all WAL in pg_xlog before that one.
The intended usage is for this script to run alongside the imports
in order for pg_xlog to be cleaned up gradually and prevent the disk
from filling up.
Unlike the blog post and probably slightly wrong is that I used
lexicographic ordering and not ordering by date. But I guess it worked
because the checks were frequent enough that no WAL ever got
recycled. In retrospect I should've used the date ordering.
Does this script have the same effect as checkpoint_completion_target=0 ?
At the end of the day, this script seems to have allowed the import we needed
to get done, but I acknowledge it was a stop-gap measure and not a long-term
solution, hence me posting on the mailing list to find a better solution.
3) Mailing list survey of related bugs
On the mailing lists, in the past, there have been bugs around pg_xlog
growing out of control:
BUG 7902 [7] - Discusses a situation where WAL are produced faster than
checkpoints can be completed(written to disk), and therefore the WALs
in pg_xlog cannot be recycled/deleted. The status of this bug report
is unclear. I have a feeling it's still open. Is that the case?
BUG 14340 [9] - A user(Sonu Gupta) is reporting pg_xlog unbounded growth
and is asked to do some checks and then directed to the pgsql-general mailing list
where he did not follow up.
I quote the checks that were suggested
Check that your archive_command is functioning correctly, and that you
don't have any inactive replication slots (select * from
pg_replication_slots where not active). Also check the server logs if
both those things are okay.
I have done these checks, and the archive_command we have is returning zero always.
And we do not have inactive replication slots.
BUG 10013 [12] - A user reports initdb to fill up the disk once he changes
BLCKSZ and/or XLOG_BLCKSZ to non-standard values. The bug seems to be
open.
BUG 11989 [8] - A user reports a pg_xlog unbounded growth that concludes
in a disk outage. No further replies after the bug report.
BUG 2104 [10] - A user reports a PostgreSQL not recycling pg_xlog
files. It's suggested that this might have happened because
checkpoints were failing so WAL segments could not be recycled.
BUG 7801 [11] - This is a bit offtopic for our problem(since we don't have
replication set up yet for the server with unbound pg_xlog growth),
but still an interesting read.
A slave falls too far behind a master which leads to increase of
pg_xlog on the slave. The user says making
checkpoint_completion_target=0 or, manually running CHECKPOINT on the
slave is immediately freeing up space on the slave's pg_xlog.
I also learned here that a CHECKPOINT occurs approximately every
checkpoint_completion_target * checkpoint_timeout. Is this correct?
Should I set checkpoint_completion_target=0?
4) Thoughts
In the logs, there are lines like the following one:
28 2018-01-17 02:34:39.407 CST [59922] HINT: Consider increasing the configuration parameter "max_wal_size".
29 2018-01-17 02:35:02.513 CST [59922] LOG: checkpoints are occurring too frequently (23 seconds apart)
This looks very similar to BUG 7902 [7]. Is there any rule of thumb,
guideline or technique that can be used when checkpoints cannot be
completed fast enough ?
I'm not sure if this is a misconfiguration problem or a bug. Which one
would be more appropriate?
Thanks,
Stefan
[1] https://www.endpoint.com/blog/2014/09/25/pgxlog-disk-space-problem-on-postgres
[2] http://chirupgadmin.blogspot.ro/2012/02/wal-growth-calculation-pgxlog-directory.html
[3] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/AANLkTi=e=oR54OuxAw88=dtV4wt0e5edMiGaeZtBVcKO@mail.gmail.com
[4] http://www.interdb.jp/blog/pgsql/pg95walsegments/
[5] http://liufuyang.github.io/2017/09/26/postgres-cannot-auto-clean-up-folder-pg_xlog.html
[6] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/release-9-5.html#AEN128150
[7] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/E1U91WW-0006rq-82%40wrigleys.postgresql.org
[8] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20141117190201.2478.7245@wrigleys.postgresql.org
[9] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/8a3a6780-18f6-d23a-2350-ac7ad335c9e7%402ndquadrant.fr
[10] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20051209134337.94B0BF0BAB%40svr2.postgresql.org
[11] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/E1TsemH-0004dK-KN%40wrigleys.postgresql.org
[12] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20140414014442.15385.74268%40wrigleys.postgresql.org
Stefan Petrea
System Engineer, Network Engineering
stefan.petrea@tangoe.com
tangoe.com
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient of this message, and may
containinformation that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received
thismessage in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments.
Pleasenotify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. Tangoe
makesno warranty that this e-mail or its attachments are error or virus free.
Вложения
Stefan Petrea wrote: > During some database imports(using pg_restore), we're noticing fast > and unbounded growth of pg_xlog up to the point where the > partition(280G in size for us) that stores it fills up and PostgreSQL > shuts down. What do you see in pg_stat_archiver? Yours, Laurenz Albe
On 01/24/2018 12:48 PM, Stefan Petrea wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This email is structured in sections as follows:
>
> 1 - Estimating the size of pg_xlog depending on postgresql.conf parameters
> 2 - Cleaning up pg_xlog using a watchdog script
> 3 - Mailing list survey of related bugs
> 4 - Thoughts
>
> We're using PostgreSQL 9.6.6 on a Ubuntu 16.04.3 LTS.
> During some database imports(using pg_restore), we're noticing fast
> and unbounded growth of pg_xlog up to the point where the
> partition(280G in size for us) that stores it fills up and PostgreSQL
> shuts down. The error seen in the logs:
>
> 2018-01-17 01:46:23.035 CST [41671] LOG: database system was shut down at 2018-01-16 15:49:26 CST
> 2018-01-17 01:46:23.038 CST [41671] FATAL: could not write to file "pg_xlog/xlogtemp.41671": No space left on
device
> 2018-01-17 01:46:23.039 CST [41662] LOG: startup process (PID 41671) exited with exit code 1
> 2018-01-17 01:46:23.039 CST [41662] LOG: aborting startup due to startup process failure
> 2018-01-17 01:46:23.078 CST [41662] LOG: database system is shut down
>
> The config settings I thought were relevant are these ones (but I'm
> also attaching the entire postgresql.conf if there are other ones that
> I missed):
>
> wal_level=replica
> archive_command='exit 0;'
> min_wal_size=2GB
> max_wal_size=500MB
> checkpoint_completion_target = 0.7
> wal_keep_segments = 8
>
Those are values from the config file, right? What values are currently
used by the processes? That is, when you do
SELECT * FROM pg_settings
what values does that show? Perhaps someone modified the config file and
forgot to reload it / restart the server?
BTW there's a mistake in the settings, it should be max_wal_size=2GB
(it's just a type in the message, it's set correctly in the config).
Another thought is that the log file you provided is full of warning
about checkpoints happening less than 30 seconds apart. That means you
need to bump the max_wal_size value up - a lot. Perhaps to 16-32GB, to
make checkpoints less frequent. That is a basic checkpoint tuning.
> So currently the pg_xlog is growing a lot, and there doesn't seem to
> be any way to stop it.
>
> There are some formulas I came across that allow one to compute the
> maximum number of WAL allowed in pg_xlog as a function of the
> PostgreSQL config parameters.
>
> 1.1) Method from 2012 found in [2]
>
> The formula for the upper bound for WAL files in pg_xlog is
>
> (2 + checkpoint_completion_target) * checkpoint_segments + 1
> which is
> ( (2 + 0.7) * (2048/16 * 1/3 ) ) + 1 ~ 116 WAL files
>
> I used the 1/3 because of [6] the shift from checkpoint_segments to
> max_wal_size in 9.5 , the relevant quote from the release notes being:
>
> If you previously adjusted checkpoint_segments, the following formula
> will give you an approximately equivalent setting:
> max_wal_size = (3 * checkpoint_segments) * 16MB
>
> Another way of computing it, also according to [2] is the following
> 2 * checkpoint_segments + wal_keep_segments + 1
> which is (2048/16) + 8 + 1 = 137 WAL files
>
> So far we have two answers, in practice none of them check out, since
> pg_xlog grows indefinitely.
>
> 1.2) Method from the PostgreSQL internals book
>
> The book [4] says the following:
>
> it could temporarily become up to "3 * checkpoint_segments + 1"
>
> Ok, let's compute this too, it's 3 * (128/3) + 1 = 129 WAL files
>
> This doesn't check out either.
I don't quite understand the logic in the first formula - why you first
divide by 3 and then multiply by 2.7. But that does not really matter,
amount of WAL segments kept in pg_xlog should be about 2GB, give or
take. If you got much more WAL than that, the segments are kept because
of something preventing their removal.
And if I understand it correctly, you have about ~200GB of them, right?
>
> 1.3) On the mailing list [3] , I found similar formulas that were seen
> previously.
>
> 1.4) The post at [5] says max_wal_size is as soft limit and also sets
> wal_keep_segments = 0 in order to enforce keeping as little WAL as
> possible around. Would this work?
>
Yes, max_wal_size is a soft limit, which means it can be temporarily
exceeded. But 2GB vs. 200GB is helluwa difference, far beyond what would
be reasonable with max_wal_size=2GB.
Regarding wal_keep_segments=0 - considering you currently have this set
to 8, which is a whopping 128MB, I very much doubt setting it to 0 will
make any difference. The segments are kept around for some other reason.
There are cases where wal_keep_segments are set to high values (like
5000 or so), to allow replicas to temporarily fall behind without having
to setup a WAL archive. But this is not the case here. Honestly, I doubt
setting this to 8 makes practical sense ... That value seems so low it
does not guarantee anything.
> Does wal_keep_segments = 0 turn off WAL recycling? Frankly, I would
> rather have WAL not be recycled/reused, and just deleted to keep
> pg_xlog below expected size.
>
No, it doesn't. Why would it disable that? It simply means the segments
may need to be keept around for longer before getting recycled.
> Another question is, does wal_level = replica affect the size of
> pg_xlog in any way? We have an archive_command that just exits with
> exit code 0, so I don't see any reason for the pg_xlog files to not be
> cleaned up.
>
No, it shouldn't. The replica should stream the WAL (if it's close to
current positiion), or fetch the older WAL segments if it falls behind.
But if it falls behind too much, it may not be able to catch up as the
WAL segments get removed.
wal_keep_segments is a protection against that, but it won't keep
segments indefinitely and you set that just to 8. So this is not the
root cause.
Another option is that you created a replication slot. That is actually
the only I can think of that could cause this issue. Perhaps there is a
replication slot that is not used anymore and is preventing removal of
WAL segments? Because that's the whole point of replication slots.
What does
SELECT * FROM pg_replication_slots;
say on the master node?
> 2) Cleaning up pg_xlog using a watchdog script
>
> To get the import done I wrote a script that's actually inspired from
> a blog post where the pg_xlog out of disk space problem is
> addressed [1]. It periodically reads the last checkpoint's REDO WAL
> file, and deletes all WAL in pg_xlog before that one.
>
> ...
This makes no sense. The database should be able to remove unnecessary
WAL segments automatically. There's pretty small chance you'll get it
right in an external script - not removing WAL segments that are still
needed, etc.
Find the actual root cause, fix it. Don't invent custom scripts messing
with the critical part of the database.
>
> stefan.petrea@tangoe.com
> tangoe.com
>
> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use
> of the intended recipient of this message, and may contain
> information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not
> the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you
> are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message
> or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return
> e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments.
> Tangoe makes no warranty that this e-mail or its attachments are
> error or virus free.
>
LOL
kindd regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Hi, Am 24.01.2018 um 12:48 schrieb Stefan Petrea: > We're using PostgreSQL 9.6.6 on a Ubuntu 16.04.3 LTS. > During some database imports(using pg_restore), we're noticing fast > and unbounded growth of pg_xlog up to the point where the > partition(280G in size for us) that stores it fills up and PostgreSQL > shuts down. The error seen in the logs: > > 2018-01-17 01:46:23.035 CST [41671] LOG: database system was shut down at 2018-01-16 15:49:26 CST > 2018-01-17 01:46:23.038 CST [41671] FATAL: could not write to file "pg_xlog/xlogtemp.41671": No space left on device > 2018-01-17 01:46:23.039 CST [41662] LOG: startup process (PID 41671) exited with exit code 1 > 2018-01-17 01:46:23.039 CST [41662] LOG: aborting startup due to startup process failure > 2018-01-17 01:46:23.078 CST [41662] LOG: database system is shut down > > The config settings I thought were relevant are these ones (but I'm > also attaching the entire postgresql.conf if there are other ones that > I missed): > > wal_level=replica > archive_command='exit 0;' > min_wal_size=2GB > max_wal_size=500MB > checkpoint_completion_target = 0.7 > wal_keep_segments = 8 just to exclude some things out: * is that only happens during pg_restore, or also during normal work? * can you show us how pg_restore is invoked? * how did you create the dump (same pg-version, which format)? * can you change wal_level to minimal? (maybe that's not possible if it is in production und there are standbys) Can you change your archive_command to '/bin/true' ? I'm not sure if that can be the reason for the your problem, but 'exit 0;' terminates the process, but archive_command should return true or false, not terminate. Regards, Andreas -- 2ndQuadrant - The PostgreSQL Support Company. www.2ndQuadrant.com
Have you tried
archive_command='/bin/true'
as Andreas wrote?
-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Petrea [mailto:Stefan.Petrea@tangoe.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:48 PM
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: pg_xlog unbounded growth
Hello,
This email is structured in sections as follows:
1 - Estimating the size of pg_xlog depending on postgresql.conf parameters
2 - Cleaning up pg_xlog using a watchdog script
3 - Mailing list survey of related bugs
4 - Thoughts
We're using PostgreSQL 9.6.6 on a Ubuntu 16.04.3 LTS.
During some database imports(using pg_restore), we're noticing fast and
unbounded growth of pg_xlog up to the point where the partition(280G in size
for us) that stores it fills up and PostgreSQL shuts down. The error seen in
the logs:
2018-01-17 01:46:23.035 CST [41671] LOG: database system was shut down
at 2018-01-16 15:49:26 CST
2018-01-17 01:46:23.038 CST [41671] FATAL: could not write to file
"pg_xlog/xlogtemp.41671": No space left on device
2018-01-17 01:46:23.039 CST [41662] LOG: startup process (PID 41671)
exited with exit code 1
2018-01-17 01:46:23.039 CST [41662] LOG: aborting startup due to
startup process failure
2018-01-17 01:46:23.078 CST [41662] LOG: database system is shut down
The config settings I thought were relevant are these ones (but I'm also
attaching the entire postgresql.conf if there are other ones that I missed):
wal_level=replica
archive_command='exit 0;'
min_wal_size=2GB
max_wal_size=500MB
checkpoint_completion_target = 0.7
wal_keep_segments = 8
So currently the pg_xlog is growing a lot, and there doesn't seem to be any
way to stop it.
There are some formulas I came across that allow one to compute the maximum
number of WAL allowed in pg_xlog as a function of the PostgreSQL config
parameters.
1.1) Method from 2012 found in [2]
The formula for the upper bound for WAL files in pg_xlog is
(2 + checkpoint_completion_target) * checkpoint_segments + 1 which is ( (2 +
0.7) * (2048/16 * 1/3 ) ) + 1 ~ 116 WAL files
I used the 1/3 because of [6] the shift from checkpoint_segments to
max_wal_size in 9.5 , the relevant quote from the release notes being:
If you previously adjusted checkpoint_segments, the following formula
will give you an approximately equivalent setting:
max_wal_size = (3 * checkpoint_segments) * 16MB
Another way of computing it, also according to [2] is the following
2 * checkpoint_segments + wal_keep_segments + 1 which is (2048/16) + 8 + 1 =
137 WAL files
So far we have two answers, in practice none of them check out, since
pg_xlog grows indefinitely.
1.2) Method from the PostgreSQL internals book
The book [4] says the following:
it could temporarily become up to "3 * checkpoint_segments + 1"
Ok, let's compute this too, it's 3 * (128/3) + 1 = 129 WAL files
This doesn't check out either.
1.3) On the mailing list [3] , I found similar formulas that were seen
previously.
1.4) The post at [5] says max_wal_size is as soft limit and also sets
wal_keep_segments = 0 in order to enforce keeping as little WAL as possible
around. Would this work?
Does wal_keep_segments = 0 turn off WAL recycling? Frankly, I would rather
have WAL not be recycled/reused, and just deleted to keep pg_xlog below
expected size.
Another question is, does wal_level = replica affect the size of pg_xlog in
any way? We have an archive_command that just exits with exit code 0, so I
don't see any reason for the pg_xlog files to not be cleaned up.
2) Cleaning up pg_xlog using a watchdog script
To get the import done I wrote a script that's actually inspired from a blog
post where the pg_xlog out of disk space problem is addressed [1]. It
periodically reads the last checkpoint's REDO WAL file, and deletes all WAL
in pg_xlog before that one.
The intended usage is for this script to run alongside the imports in order
for pg_xlog to be cleaned up gradually and prevent the disk from filling up.
Unlike the blog post and probably slightly wrong is that I used
lexicographic ordering and not ordering by date. But I guess it worked
because the checks were frequent enough that no WAL ever got recycled. In
retrospect I should've used the date ordering.
Does this script have the same effect as checkpoint_completion_target=0 ?
At the end of the day, this script seems to have allowed the import we
needed to get done, but I acknowledge it was a stop-gap measure and not a
long-term solution, hence me posting on the mailing list to find a better
solution.
3) Mailing list survey of related bugs
On the mailing lists, in the past, there have been bugs around pg_xlog
growing out of control:
BUG 7902 [7] - Discusses a situation where WAL are produced faster than
checkpoints can be completed(written to disk), and therefore the WALs in
pg_xlog cannot be recycled/deleted. The status of this bug report is
unclear. I have a feeling it's still open. Is that the case?
BUG 14340 [9] - A user(Sonu Gupta) is reporting pg_xlog unbounded growth and
is asked to do some checks and then directed to the pgsql-general mailing
list where he did not follow up.
I quote the checks that were suggested
Check that your archive_command is functioning correctly, and that you
don't have any inactive replication slots (select * from
pg_replication_slots where not active). Also check the server logs if
both those things are okay.
I have done these checks, and the archive_command we have is returning zero
always.
And we do not have inactive replication slots.
BUG 10013 [12] - A user reports initdb to fill up the disk once he changes
BLCKSZ and/or XLOG_BLCKSZ to non-standard values. The bug seems to be open.
BUG 11989 [8] - A user reports a pg_xlog unbounded growth that concludes in
a disk outage. No further replies after the bug report.
BUG 2104 [10] - A user reports a PostgreSQL not recycling pg_xlog files.
It's suggested that this might have happened because checkpoints were
failing so WAL segments could not be recycled.
BUG 7801 [11] - This is a bit offtopic for our problem(since we don't have
replication set up yet for the server with unbound pg_xlog growth), but
still an interesting read.
A slave falls too far behind a master which leads to increase of pg_xlog on
the slave. The user says making
checkpoint_completion_target=0 or, manually running CHECKPOINT on the slave
is immediately freeing up space on the slave's pg_xlog.
I also learned here that a CHECKPOINT occurs approximately every
checkpoint_completion_target * checkpoint_timeout. Is this correct?
Should I set checkpoint_completion_target=0?
4) Thoughts
In the logs, there are lines like the following one:
28 2018-01-17 02:34:39.407 CST [59922] HINT: Consider increasing the
configuration parameter "max_wal_size".
29 2018-01-17 02:35:02.513 CST [59922] LOG: checkpoints are occurring
too frequently (23 seconds apart)
This looks very similar to BUG 7902 [7]. Is there any rule of thumb,
guideline or technique that can be used when checkpoints cannot be completed
fast enough ?
I'm not sure if this is a misconfiguration problem or a bug. Which one would
be more appropriate?
Thanks,
Stefan
[1]
https://www.endpoint.com/blog/2014/09/25/pgxlog-disk-space-problem-on-postgr
es
[2]
http://chirupgadmin.blogspot.ro/2012/02/wal-growth-calculation-pgxlog-direct
ory.html
[3]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/AANLkTi=e=oR54OuxAw88=dtV4wt0e5edMiGae
ZtBVcKO@mail.gmail.com
[4] http://www.interdb.jp/blog/pgsql/pg95walsegments/
[5]
http://liufuyang.github.io/2017/09/26/postgres-cannot-auto-clean-up-folder-p
g_xlog.html
[6] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/release-9-5.html#AEN128150
[7]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/E1U91WW-0006rq-82%40wrigleys.post
gresql.org
[8]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20141117190201.2478.7245@wrigleys.post
gresql.org
[9]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/8a3a6780-18f6-d23a-2350-ac7ad335c
9e7%402ndquadrant.fr
[10]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20051209134337.94B0BF0BAB%40svr2.
postgresql.org
[11]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/E1TsemH-0004dK-KN%40wrigleys.post
gresql.org
[12]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20140414014442.15385.74268%40wrig
leys.postgresql.org
Stefan Petrea
System Engineer, Network Engineering
stefan.petrea@tangoe.com
tangoe.com
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
intended recipient of this message, and may contain information that is
confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy,
distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify
the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message
and any attachments. Tangoe makes no warranty that this e-mail or its
attachments are error or virus free.