Wed Jan 30 10:14:11 PST 2013
- Previous message: [Slony1-bugs] [Bug 285] move set issues
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Is anyone else getting these? Jan -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Failure Notice Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:12:15 -0000 From: MAILER-DAEMON at yahoo.com To: JanWieck at yahoo.com Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address. <bugzilla-daemon at main.slony.info>: Remote host said: 550 5.1.1 <bugzilla-daemon at main.slony.info>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table [RCPT_TO] --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Received: from [98.138.90.48] by nm7.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Jan 2013 18:12:14 -0000 Received: from [98.138.226.128] by tm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Jan 2013 18:12:14 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp215.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Jan 2013 18:12:14 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 152795.8992.bm at smtp215.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: UrRB4BQVM1kkM9oBhhXERLbqOpczvlbkDUvPa9tNLTxIByk EijY6YfSwc_CsOoiGBFZnwB8rqvI_3go_H5sVga2mlQn082rgWc_OT.W_gg7 T6hrowA9nbM6WgTRpRjjYLhWgW3eo0UGjgWYwpffVhGZxyLyHpwbWcsNHPyh vnIf0H4wfwUvzjq1N7Lct4IRkBieHpJulm74w5cHOhQEI1BJy2m0VhNkEtwN n.9f6jScbgnfOYYcEKL.iJrcCna9Yb19VIQpvakUlO8du7R930KkskyfrZV8 X3dFTZP40KOjGDw7ulHK8UboBDd3jMTmr5l6YTZbJeRkqJV1pjAAxNYN7y6. FyfugsouD2pFCwYLwuJb35P9Pc0zymk1YiLAPy3dJ.xX6DefYTqcynhasnWk MA4oVtV4F2RiMOi2AGp8lYgj7CaZOLDBjeL37P3xsA8fgdckzwnbflBJ6UVE fFqK.HowBG4ygXZz6TLqslXdwOrroD7hHW9DaaaSwKZtUi1sMVKWyh.dQ X-Yahoo-SMTP: auMih2KswBAUyVy7YHrIeglmGa00 Received: from [172.21.8.21] (JanWieck at 173.49.215.95 with plain) by smtp215.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Jan 2013 10:12:14 -0800 PST Message-ID: <51096282.8080102 at Yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:12:18 -0500 From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck at Yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Singer <ssinger at ca.afilias.info> CC: slony1-bugs at lists.slony.info, bugzilla-daemon at main.slony.info Subject: Re: [Slony1-bugs] [Bug 285] move set issues References: <bug-285-4 at http.www.slony.info/bugzilla/> <20130130145538.E06A0290EF7 at main.slony.info> <51093E78.6070903 at Yahoo.com> <510949D0.8000603 at ca.afilias.info> In-Reply-To: <510949D0.8000603 at ca.afilias.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 1/30/2013 11:26 AM, Steve Singer wrote: > On 13-01-30 10:38 AM, Jan Wieck wrote: >> On 1/30/2013 9:55 AM, bugzilla-daemon at main.slony.info wrote: >> >>> The UPDATE to sl_setsync does not have ssy_origin as part of the where clause, >>> because we are running in READ COMMITTED mode the DELETE+INSERT of the row on >>> sl_setsync becomes visible to the UPDATE part of sync_event() even though the >>> sync_event() started before the ACCEPT_SET was processed. >> >> This sounds very plausible. >> >> I wonder if Slony in general is using too many concurrent threads. >> Unfortunately changing that won't be easy. >> >> >> Jan >> > > I suspect the solution is to at ssy_origin as part of the where clause > on that update so we only change sl_setsync rows for the current remote > worker. > > I am testing > *************** sync_event(SlonNode *node, SlonConn *loc > *** 4693,4701 **** > "update %s.sl_setsync set " > " ssy_seqno = '%s', ssy_snapshot = '%s', " > " ssy_action_list = '' " > ! "where ssy_setid in (", > rtcfg_namespace, > ! seqbuf, event->ev_snapshot_c); > i = 0; > for (provider = wd->provider_head; provider; provider = provider->next) > { > --- 4692,4700 ---- > "update %s.sl_setsync set " > " ssy_seqno = '%s', ssy_snapshot = '%s', " > " ssy_action_list = '' " > ! "where ssy_origin=%d and ssy_setid in (", > rtcfg_namespace, > ! seqbuf, event->ev_snapshot_c,node->no_id); > i = 0; > for (provider = wd->provider_head; provider; provider = provider->next) > { > > > To see if that makes the problem go away. Because the race condition is > somewhat rare it will be a few days before I can have an idea if that helps Makes sense. Although it is a little frightening that this sort of concurrency on the database can result in the wrong rows being updated in the first place. Jan -- Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. -- Benjamin Franklin -------------- next part --------------
- Previous message: [Slony1-bugs] [Bug 285] move set issues
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Slony1-bugs mailing list