[pgpool-general: 1744] Re: [PgPool-II 3.2.4] pgpool_regclass now mandatory?

Tatsuo Ishii ishii at postgresql.org
Wed May 15 07:54:25 JST 2013


Glad to hear that. I have committed the fix into master and 3.2-stable
branch.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp

> Just perfect!
> 
> Thanks a lot for this really fast resolution.
> 
> 
> 2013/5/14 Tatsuo Ishii <ishii at postgresql.org>
> 
>> >> Hello all.
>> >>
>> >> I tried Pgpool-II 3.2.4 and it seems that the pgpool_regclass is now
>> >> mandatory?
>> >> Indeed pgpool have degenerated a node just after I put the 3.2.4
>> version in
>> >> production; here is the logs:
>> >>
>> >> May 13 09:55:00 node1 pgpool-II[10714]: connection received:
>> host=192.0.0.7
>> >> port=36766
>> >> May 13 09:55:00 node1 pgpool-II[10714]: do_query: error message from
>> >> backend function "pgpool_regclass(cstring)" does not exist
>> >> May 13 09:55:00 node1 pgpool-II[10714]: do_query: error message from
>> >> backend current transaction is aborted, commands ignored until end of
>> >> transaction block
>> >> May 13 09:55:00 node1 pgpool-II[10714]: do_query: error message from
>> >> backend current transaction is aborted, commands ignored until end of
>> >> transaction block
>> >> May 13 09:55:00 node1 pgpool-II[10714]: pool_send_and_wait: Error or
>> notice
>> >> message from backend: : DB node id: 0 backend pid: 10736 statement:
>> INSERT
>> >> INTO blablabla; message: current transaction is aborted, commands
>> ignored
>> >> until end of transaction block
>> >> May 13 09:55:00 node1 pgpool-II[10714]: read_kind_from_backend: 1 th
>> kind C
>> >> does not match with master or majority connection kind E
>> >> May 13 09:55:00 node1 pgpool-II[10714]: kind mismatch among backends.
>> >> Possible last query was: "INSERT INTO blablabla;" kind details are: 0[E:
>> >> current transaction is aborted, commands ignored until end of
>> transaction
>> >> block] 1[C]
>> >> May 13 09:55:00 node1 pgpool-II[10714]: degenerate_backend_set: 1 fail
>> over
>> >> request from pid 10714
>> >> May 13 09:55:00 node1 pgpool-II[10169]: starting degeneration. shutdown
>> >> host 192.0.0.19(5432)
>> >> May 13 09:55:00 node1 pgpool-II[10169]: Restart all children
>> >> May 13 09:55:00 node1 pgpool-II[10169]: execute command: sudo
>> >> /usr/bin/block_failed_db 1 &
>> >> May 13 09:55:00 node1 pgpool-II[10169]: failover: set new primary node:
>> -1
>> >> May 13 09:55:00 node1 pgpool-II[10169]: failover: set new master node: 0
>> >> May 13 09:55:00 node1 pgpool-II[10169]: failover done. shutdown host
>> >> 192.0.0.19(5432)
>> >> May 13 09:55:00 node1 pgpool-II[10316]: worker process received restart
>> >> request
>> >> May 13 09:55:00 node1 pgpool-II[10756]: connection received:
>> >> host=192.0.0.117 port=54452
>> >>
>> >> I never added the table to my databases before (even I know that it's
>> >> "strongly recommended" in the documentation) and I'm using PgPool since
>> >> several years now.
>> >> According to releases notes I guess this is related to the changes about
>> >> pool_has_pgpool_regclass.
>> >>
>> >> So my question is: does I really need to add the pgpool_regclass in my
>> >> databases or it's a side effect of the 3.4.8 which could be corrected in
>> >> the future?
>> >
>> > No, it's not intentional that pgpool-II 3.2.4 requires
>> > pgpool_regclass() (if it is so). Will look into this.
>>
>> It turned out that it's a bug with 3.2.4. Attached patch should fix
>> the problem. Please try it.
>> --
>> Tatsuo Ishii
>> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
>> English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
>> Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
>>


More information about the pgpool-general mailing list