[Pgpool-general] when is the new pgpool release going to be?
DM
dm.aeqa at gmail.com
Tue Aug 4 17:10:58 UTC 2009
Hi All,
I see there were too many good fixes recently for pgpool.
Any idea when I can get the new release of pgpool?
Thanks
Deepak
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:42 PM, DM <dm.aeqa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Tatsuo,
>
> Thank you for your fix.
> I had same issues as Nimesh. I applied this patch and i am not getting the
> below error anymore.
>
> *ERROR: prepared statement
> "S_5"
> already exists*
>
> Thanks for your help again.
>
> Thanks
> Deepak
>
>
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:42:46 +0900 (JST)
>> From: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii at sraoss.co.jp>
>> Subject: Re: [Pgpool-general] Pgpool probelms
>> To: nimesh.satam at gmail.com
>> Cc: nimesh.zedo at gmail.com, pgpool-general at pgfoundry.org
>> Message-ID: <20090715.134246.124810070.t-ishii at sraoss.co.jp>
>> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>> Sorry for delay. Akio Ishida found a cause of this bug. Here is the
>> patches made by him which should fix your problem. Please try...
>>
>> $ diff -u pool_process_query.c.org pool_process_query.c
>> --- pool_process_query.c.org 2009-05-04 19:53:29.000000000 +0900
>> +++ pool_process_query.c 2009-07-15 13:03:25.000000000 +0900
>> @@ -2051,13 +2051,13 @@
>>
>> if (qcnt >= qn)
>> {
>> - if (qcnt >= qn + prepared_list.cnt)
>> + if (prepared_list.cnt == 0)
>> {
>> reset_prepared_list(&prepared_list);
>> return 2;
>> }
>>
>> - send_deallocate(backend, &prepared_list, qcnt - qn);
>> + send_deallocate(backend, &prepared_list, 0);
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>>
>> --
>> Tatsuo Ishii
>> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
>>
>> > Hi Tatsuo,
>> >
>> > Can you let me know, what might be wrong here?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Nimesh.
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6/17/09, Nimesh Satam <nimesh.satam at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Tatsuo,
>> > >
>> > > I am getting this on pgpool-II 2.2.2. I don't have any case studies
>> ready
>> > > at this moment. But here are the data_logs below in the mail which
>> might
>> > > help you. Three statements were passed S_1, S_2, S_3, but when the
>> user
>> > > disconnected only S_1, S_3 got DEALLOCATED. Same happened at the end
>> when
>> > > S_1 and S_3 were prepared after disconnection only S_1 got
>> DEALLOCATED. Will
>> > > this be causing the problem.
>> > >
>> > > *2009-06-17 03:15:07 PDT [11025]: [3-1] LOG: duration: 0.437 ms
>> parse
>> > > S_1: BEGIN*
>> > > 2009-06-17 03:15:07 PDT [11025]: [4-1] LOG: duration: 0.009 ms bind
>> S_1:
>> > > BEGIN
>> > > *2009-06-17 03:15:07 PDT [11025]: [13-1] LOG: duration: 0.009 ms
>> parse
>> > > S_2: COMMIT*
>> > > 2009-06-17 03:15:13 PDT [11025]: [14-1] LOG: duration: 0.042 ms bind
>> S_1:
>> > > BEGIN
>> > > *2009-06-17 03:16:10 PDT [11025]: [8071-1] LOG: duration: 0.010 ms
>> parse
>> > > S_3: ROLLBACK*
>> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43176-1] LOG: duration: 0.025 ms
>> > > statement: BEGIN
>> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43177-1] LOG: duration: 0.019 ms
>> > > statement: RESET ALL
>> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43178-1] LOG: duration: 0.106 ms
>> > > statement: COMMIT
>> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43179-1] LOG: duration: 0.009 ms
>> > > statement: BEGIN
>> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43180-1] LOG: duration: 0.021 ms
>> > > statement: SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION DEFAULT
>> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43181-1] LOG: duration: 0.011 ms
>> > > statement: COMMIT
>> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43182-1] LOG: duration: 0.007 ms
>> > > statement: BEGIN
>> > > *2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43183-1] LOG: duration: 0.019 ms
>> > > statement: DEALLOCATE "S_1"*
>> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43184-1] LOG: duration: 0.009 ms
>> > > statement: COMMIT
>> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43185-1] LOG: duration: 0.007 ms
>> > > statement: BEGIN
>> > > *2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43186-1] LOG: duration: 0.010 ms
>> > > statement: DEALLOCATE "S_3"*
>> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:12 PDT [11025]: [43187-1] LOG: duration: 0.009 ms
>> > > statement: COMMIT
>> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:15 PDT [11025]: [43188-1] LOG: duration: 0.023 ms
>> parse
>> > > S_1: BEGIN
>> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:15 PDT [11025]: [43189-1] LOG: duration: 0.003 ms
>> bind
>> > > S_1: BEGIN*
>> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:16 PDT [11025]: [43286-1] ERROR: prepared statement
>> "S_2"
>> > > already exists*
>> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:17 PDT [11025]: [43288-1] LOG: duration: 0.009 ms
>> bind
>> > > S_1: BEGIN
>> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:21 PDT [11025]: [45950-1] LOG: duration: 0.010 ms
>> parse
>> > > S_3: COMMIT
>> > > 2009-06-17 03:20:31 PDT [11025]: [45951-1] LOG: duration: 0.027 ms
>> bind
>> > > S_1: BEGIN
>> > > 2009-06-17 03:25:58 PDT [11025]: [70834-1] LOG: duration: 0.034 ms
>> bind
>> > > S_1: BEGIN
>> > > *2009-06-17 03:25:58 PDT [11025]: [70888-1] LOG: duration: 0.012 ms
>> > > statement: DEALLOCATE "S_1"*
>> > >
>> > > We have kept the *connection_cache = true *and the *reset_query_list =
>> > > 'ABORT; RESET ALL; SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION DEFAULT'*
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Nimesh.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii at sraoss.co.jp>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> If you are getting this with pgpool-II 2.2.2, please send a
>> > >> self-contained test case if possible.
>> > >> --
>> > >> Tatsuo Ishii
>> > >> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
>> > >>
>> > >> > Hi,
>> > >> >
>> > >> > We are using pgpool-II in Master-slave, Loadbalance mode and are
>> facing
>> > >> > issues with the same. Can anybody lets us know what's going wrong
>> here?
>> > >> >
>> > >> > 1) We are getting many entries in the database logs with following
>> > >> errors:
>> > >> > 2009-06-16 21:42:47 PDT [11040]: [2486-1] ERROR: prepared
>> statement
>> > >> "S_2"
>> > >> > already exists
>> > >> > 2009-06-16 21:43:04 PDT [11040]: [2535-1] ERROR: prepared
>> statement
>> > >> "S_3"
>> > >> > already exists
>> > >> > 2009-06-16 21:43:48 PDT [11040]: [2546-1] ERROR: prepared
>> statement
>> > >> "S_4"
>> > >> > already exists
>> > >> > 2009-06-16 21:43:49 PDT [11040]: [2564-1] ERROR: prepared
>> statement
>> > >> "S_5"
>> > >> > already exists
>> > >> > 2009-06-16 21:44:49 PDT [11040]: [2576-1] ERROR: prepared
>> statement
>> > >> "S_6"
>> > >> > already exists
>> > >> >
>> > >> > This causes the application to fail. {This was supposed to be fixed
>> in
>> > >> 2.2.1
>> > >> > and later versions?}
>> > >> >
>> > >> > 2) We are seeing stuck queries when connecting through pgpool. ps U
>> > >> postgres
>> > >> > shows all the queries in bind state:
>> > >> > 5003 ? Ss 0:52 postgres: ck rpro xxx.xx.xx.xx(52218)
>> BIND
>> > >> > 5004 ? Ss 0:28 postgres: ck rpro xxx.xx.xx.xx(52220)
>> BIND
>> > >> > 18961 ? Ss 0:54 postgres: ck rpro xxx.xx.xx.xx(34508)
>> BIND
>> > >> > 18962 ? Ss 0:39 postgres: ck rpro xxx.xx.xx.xx(34510)
>> BIND
>> > >> >
>> > >> > This queries are not performing any activity and seem to have
>> hanged.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Both applications in question are Java applications and we are
>> using the
>> > >> > postgres version 8.3.3
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Any help here would be much appreciated.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Regards,
>> > >> > Nimesh.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pgpool-general mailing list
>> Pgpool-general at pgfoundry.org
>> http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
>>
>>
>> End of Pgpool-general Digest, Vol 56, Issue 16
>> **********************************************
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://pgfoundry.org/pipermail/pgpool-general/attachments/20090804/d7a63c34/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Pgpool-general
mailing list