Horton

Thread

  1. Re: [BUGS] problem creating index in 6,5,3

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 1999-12-17T18:59:13Z

    Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop@range.infoplease.com> writes:
> The problem manifests itself as

> webusers=> CREATE INDEX zdaily_id ON daily (id);
> pqReadData() -- backend closed the channel unexpectedly.
>         This probably means the backend terminated abnormally
>         before or while processing the request.

Is a corefile dumped in the database directory when this happens?
If so, can you get a backtrace from it with gdb?

> This did work for us using 6.5.1 compiled in house.  Our problems
> started with the 6.5.3 RPM.

Hmm.  We have been seeing some reports recently of other odd behavior
with the Linux RPMs (see the "ordering RH6.1" thread on pgsql-hackers).
Would you take the time to compile 6.5.3 from source and see if you
still see the same behavior?

If you do this, please compile the backend with full debug+assert
support, which is to say
  (a) add --enable-cassert to the configure command;
  (b) do   make COPT=-g all  instead of just make all.
That should make the gdb backtrace a lot more informative, if
a coredump happens...

			regards, tom lane

  2. Re: [BUGS] problem creating index in 6,5,3

    Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop@range.infoplease.com> — 1999-12-17T19:16:46Z

    >   cc: pgsql-bugs@postgreSQL.org
>   Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 13:59:13 -0500
>   From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>
>   Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop@range.infoplease.com> writes:
>   > The problem manifests itself as
>
>   > webusers=> CREATE INDEX zdaily_id ON daily (id);
>   > pqReadData() -- backend closed the channel unexpectedly.
>   >         This probably means the backend terminated abnormally
>   >         before or while processing the request.
>
>   Is a corefile dumped in the database directory when this happens?
>   If so, can you get a backtrace from it with gdb?

No corefile is dumped

>   > This did work for us using 6.5.1 compiled in house.  Our problems
>   > started with the 6.5.3 RPM.
>
>   Hmm.  We have been seeing some reports recently of other odd behavior
>   with the Linux RPMs (see the "ordering RH6.1" thread on pgsql-hackers).
>   Would you take the time to compile 6.5.3 from source and see if you
>   still see the same behavior?

In progress.  Stumbling over the fact that our VA Research is not
recognized by config.guess -- found out how to fix config.guess to
correct that (I probably should have checked over at FSF first).  Just
patching the SRPM now

>   If you do this, please compile the backend with full debug+assert
>   support, which is to say
>     (a) add --enable-cassert to the configure command;
>     (b) do   make COPT=-g all  instead of just make all.
>   That should make the gdb backtrace a lot more informative, if
>   a coredump happens...
>
>			   regards, tom lane


okey dokey.

karl

  3. Re: [BUGS] problem creating index in 6,5,3

    Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop@range.infoplease.com> — 1999-12-17T21:38:54Z

    Recompiled with

  (a) add --enable-cassert to the configure command;
  (b) do   make COPT=-g all  instead of just make all.

On the same machine that the backend runs on.

Still same behaviour.  Saw small notice in log file:

proc_exit(0) [#0]
shmem_exit(0) [#0]
exit(0)
proc_exit(0) [#0]
shmem_exit(0) [#0]
exit(0)

Still no core.

I'm not really sure there is a linkage with the ordering thing -
remember that this worked fine a week ago before I upgraded to 6.5.3.
Unless the backend reaches out to different libraries than in 6.5.1, I
think it's unlikely to be RH6n libraries.  Also, even tough RH libs
can be odd, this is not a redhat machine - it's VA linux, which uses
RPMs but is in many aspects different than VA linux.

So I'm still stumped.  For laughs, I think I'll try it on a much less
powerful RH60 box and see what I get.

Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help diagnose.

Karl

  4. Cannot index large table in 6.5.3 on Linux

    Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop@range.infoplease.com> — 1999-12-21T13:16:11Z

    This was originally posted on bugs, to no avail.  Maybe someone else
in the general mailing list has had similar problems and can shed some
light.

Basically, the subject say it all.  I am trying to index a text field
in a somehwhat large table (approx 1GB).  We have had this database
running for over a year now, and we have never had this problem until
upgrading to 6.5.3.  Most recently, we were running 6.5.1 and the
table indexed fine.  We do a lot of inserts on the table each night,
so we drop the index first for performance reasons.  Since upgrading
to 6.5.3, we have not been able to recreate the index (However, an
index on a char(1) field and a joint index on (date,integer) both do
work -- they generate 200000000 byte indexes.)

When we moved to 6.5.3, we vacuumed the database just to be make sure
there were no problems.  That worked fine.  It's just the creation
that seems to be the problem.

I have watched the process of creation.  It seems to get most or all
of the way through the process - it creates an index file about the
size of the old one (~750000000 bytes).  Then we get:

webusers=> CREATE INDEX zdaily_id ON daily (id);
pqReadData() -- backend closed the channel unexpectedly.
        This probably means the backend terminated abnormally
        before or while processing the request.
We have lost the connection to the backend, so further processing is impossible.  Terminating.

and everything is deleted.

The original 6.5.3 install was from the RPM.  I have recompiled the
database on the machine in question, and still the same result.  I
have tried both btree and hash indexes, still the same result.  At
first, the table spanned two files.  I moved old data out and shrunk
it to one file.  Still the same result.

I have not been able to cause postmaster to generate a core when it
dies.

So no I'm stumped.

I am running on 1 dual-processor VA-linux machine:

  Architecture (example: Intel Pentium)         :
	Intel Pentium III 450MHz x2 SMP

  Operating System (example: Linux 2.0.26 ELF)  :
	Linux version 2.2.7-1.23smp (root@jiangsup.var.com) (gcc version egcs-2.91.66 19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2 release)) #1 SMP Thu Jul 8 15:23:01 PDT 1999

  PostgreSQL version (example: PostgreSQL-6.5.2):    PostgreSQL-6.5.3
	(from postgresql-6.5.3-1.i386.rpm distributed by
	www.POstgreSQL.org, then compiled on local machine)

  Compiler used (example:  gcc 2.8.0)           :
	gcc version egcs-2.91.66 19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2 release)  


I would appreciate any suggestions on additional possibilities for
diagnosis or repair.

-- 
Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop@alert.infoplease.com>
617.832.0332 (Fax: 617.956.2696)

Information Please - your source for FREE online reference
http://www.infoplease.com  - Your Ultimate Fact Finder
http://kids.infoplease.com - The Great Homework Helper

Netsaint Plugins Development
http://netsaintplug.sourceforge.net

  5. Re: [BUGS] problem creating index in 6,5,3

    Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop@range.infoplease.com> — 2000-01-04T20:01:32Z

    >   From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>
>   Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop@range.infoplease.com> writes:
>   > The problem manifests itself as
>
>   > webusers=> CREATE INDEX zdaily_id ON daily (id);
>   > pqReadData() -- backend closed the channel unexpectedly.
>   >         This probably means the backend terminated abnormally
>   >         before or while processing the request.
>
>   Is a corefile dumped in the database directory when this happens?
>   If so, can you get a backtrace from it with gdb?
>
>   > This did work for us using 6.5.1 compiled in house.  Our problems
>   > started with the 6.5.3 RPM.
>
>   Hmm.  We have been seeing some reports recently of other odd behavior
>   with the Linux RPMs (see the "ordering RH6.1" thread on pgsql-hackers).
>   Would you take the time to compile 6.5.3 from source and see if you
>   still see the same behavior?
>
>   If you do this, please compile the backend with full debug+assert
>   support, which is to say
>     (a) add --enable-cassert to the configure command;
>     (b) do   make COPT=-g all  instead of just make all.
>   That should make the gdb backtrace a lot more informative, if
>   a coredump happens...

Finally got a tiny little error message:

sterno.infoplease.com:/u/kdebisschop> psql -p 5433 webusers -c "CREATE INDEX zdaily_id ON daily (id)"
pqReadData() -- backend closed the channel unexpectedly.
        This probably means the backend terminated abnormally
        before or while processing the request.
We have lost the connection to the backend, so further processing is impossible.  Terminating.
[2]+  Done                    psql -p 5433 webusers -c "CREATE INDEX zdaily_date_n ON daily (date,n)"
sterno.infoplease.com:/u/kdebisschop> psql -p 5433 webusers -c "CREATE INDEX zdaily_id ON daily USING hash (id)"
ERROR:  cannot open segment 1 of relation zdaily_id
sterno.infoplease.com:/u/kdebisschop> 

Still no core dump.  Each of these takes an hour or so to croak.

Any ideas would be welcome.

Karl DeBisschop

  6. Re: [BUGS] problem creating index in 6,5,3

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2000-01-04T22:00:18Z

    Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop@range.infoplease.com> writes:
> sterno.infoplease.com:/u/kdebisschop> psql -p 5433 webusers -c "CREATE INDEX zdaily_id ON daily (id)"
> pqReadData() -- backend closed the channel unexpectedly.
>         This probably means the backend terminated abnormally
>         before or while processing the request.
> We have lost the connection to the backend, so further processing is impossible.  Terminating.
> [2]+  Done                    psql -p 5433 webusers -c "CREATE INDEX zdaily_date_n ON daily (date,n)"
> sterno.infoplease.com:/u/kdebisschop> psql -p 5433 webusers -c "CREATE INDEX zdaily_id ON daily USING hash (id)"
> ERROR:  cannot open segment 1 of relation zdaily_id
> sterno.infoplease.com:/u/kdebisschop> 

> Still no core dump.  Each of these takes an hour or so to croak.

Puzzling...

The lack of a core dump is probably the thing we ought to be paying
attention to here --- most ordinary sorts of unexpected-backend-crash
bugs should dump core.

One possibility is that the kernel is killing that backend process,
most likely for having exceeded a system limit on runtime or disk blocks
written; do you have such limits enabled on your machine?  Or maybe it
is running out of memory/swap space; how big does the process get before
terminating?

Another possibility is that the backend has detected a fatal error
condition and is doing a more-or-less-orderly shutdown.  However if that
were true then there ought to be an error message in the postmaster
logfile; I see no such message in your prior mails.

Also, I just noticed that you are trying to index a "text" field.
How long are the entries in the field?  6.5.* does not have adequate
defenses against overly-long index entries --- the maximum safe size
is 2700 bytes IIRC, but this isn't tested for in the current release.

			regards, tom lane

  7. Re: [BUGS] problem creating index in 6,5,3

    Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop@range.infoplease.com> — 2000-01-06T15:35:13Z

    >   From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>
>   Puzzling...
>
>   The lack of a core dump is probably the thing we ought to be paying
>   attention to here --- most ordinary sorts of unexpected-backend-crash
>   bugs should dump core.

Seems reasonable.  To the extent that my frustration over this problem
has become an emotional issue, alot of that has to do with the fact
that I can't seem to get a clue what the problem is.

>   One possibility is that the kernel is killing that backend process,
>   most likely for having exceeded a system limit on runtime or disk blocks
>   written; do you have such limits enabled on your machine?  Or maybe it
>   is running out of memory/swap space; how big does the process get before
>   terminating?

No quotas are established.  This is not the largest, nor longest
process that runs routinely on this machine.  Plus, it ran under
6.5.1, but stopped running once I installed 6.5.1.

As far as machine limits, I'm pretty sure we are not reaching any.
See for yourself if you want:

========================================================================
[postgres@sterno webusers]$ ps -u postgres -o sz,vsz,rss,pid,time,stat,args;df -lk; ls -sk1 z* pg_so*;cat /proc/meminfo
   SZ   VSZ  RSS   PID     TIME STAT COMMAND
 5263 21052 1008 30040 00:00:01 S    /usr/bin/postmaster -i -d 3 -B 2048 -D/var/lib/pgsql -o -S 10240
 3085 12340  524  5713 00:00:00 S    /opt/postgresql/bin/postmaster -p 5433 -B 1024 -S -D/opt/postgres-6.5.1-webusers-db -o -S 5120
  423  1692  964  8558 00:00:00 S    -bash
 3349 13396 10308 8869 00:01:39 R    /opt/postgresql/bin/postgres localhost webadmin webusers CREATE                              
  421  1684  944  8873 00:00:00 S    -bash
  663  2652  956  8916 00:00:00 R    ps -u postgres -o sz,vsz,rss,pid,time,stat,args
Filesystem           1k-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda1              1981000   1114966    763620  59% /
/dev/sda7              6123224   3344200   2462948  58% /disk/1
 19608 pg_sorttemp8869.0
 66184 pg_sorttemp8869.1
 19352 pg_sorttemp8869.10
 66184 pg_sorttemp8869.11
 19480 pg_sorttemp8869.12
 66152 pg_sorttemp8869.13
 19640 pg_sorttemp8869.2
 66184 pg_sorttemp8869.3
 19416 pg_sorttemp8869.4
 66184 pg_sorttemp8869.5
 19384 pg_sorttemp8869.6
 66184 pg_sorttemp8869.7
 19576 pg_sorttemp8869.8
 66184 pg_sorttemp8869.9
224072 zdaily_cookie
235708 zdaily_date_n
    16 zdaily_id
        total:    used:    free:  shared: buffers:  cached:
Mem:  1061101568 1058770944  2330624 59154432 383434752 615337984
Swap: 526401536 18931712 507469824
MemTotal:   1036232 kB
MemFree:       2276 kB
MemShared:    57768 kB
Buffers:     374448 kB
Cached:      600916 kB
SwapTotal:   514064 kB
SwapFree:    495576 kB
========================================================================

MemFree bounces around some, occasionally becoming rather large, but
that is an OS function.  There's always plenty of swap to draw from.

The porcess size basically does not change during operation.

>   Another possibility is that the backend has detected a fatal error
>   condition and is doing a more-or-less-orderly shutdown.  However if that
>   were true then there ought to be an error message in the postmaster
>   logfile; I see no such message in your prior mails.

There have been no such messages.

>   Also, I just noticed that you are trying to index a "text" field.
>   How long are the entries in the field?  6.5.* does not have adequate
>   defenses against overly-long index entries --- the maximum safe size
>   is 2700 bytes IIRC, but this isn't tested for in the current release.

Text field max size is 32 characters.

I have done a little more poking around.  Just to confirm that size is
the problem, I recreated the schema and imported just 30 or so
records.  Index works fine.

  8. Re: [BUGS] problem creating index in 6,5,3

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2000-01-06T16:35:44Z

    Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop@range.infoplease.com> writes:
> Text field max size is 32 characters.

Drat, another good theory down the drain ;-)

I think it's time to start wheeling out the heavy artillery.  Do you
know how to use gdb?  I think we might be able to get some useful info
this way:

1. Start a postgres process running doing the CREATE INDEX.  Use ps to
determine the PID of the backend process.

2. gdb /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postgres (or whereever you keep the
executable).  You will need to run this as the postgres user.

3. In gdb:
		attach PID-of-backend-process
		break exit
		break _exit		(just belt and suspenders stuff)
		cont
(Depending on your system, it might not let you set a breakpoint at
exit, in which case try setting breaks at "proc_exit" and "quickdie".)

4. Wait for backend to fail.

5. If you hit any of the breakpoints, use "bt" to get a backtrace.
Otherwise, gdb should at least tell you what signal caused the program
to terminate ... which will be more info than we have now ...

			regards, tom lane

  9. Re: [BUGS] problem creating index in 6,5,3

    Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop@range.infoplease.com> — 2000-01-06T17:40:09Z

    gdb seesion follows:

GNU gdb 4.17.0.11 with Linux support
Copyright 1998 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are
welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions.
Type "show copying" to see the conditions.
There is absolutely no warranty for GDB.  Type "show warranty" for details.
This GDB was configured as "i386-redhat-linux"...
(gdb) attach 9923
Attaching to program `/opt/postgresql/bin/postgres', Pid 9923
Reading symbols from /lib/libcrypt.so.1...done.
Reading symbols from /lib/libnsl.so.1...done.
Reading symbols from /lib/libdl.so.2...done.
Reading symbols from /lib/libm.so.6...done.
Reading symbols from /usr/lib/libreadline.so.3...done.
Reading symbols from /usr/lib/libhistory.so.3...done.
Reading symbols from /lib/libtermcap.so.2...done.
Reading symbols from /usr/lib/libncurses.so.4...done.
Reading symbols from /lib/libc.so.6...done.
Reading symbols from /lib/ld-linux.so.2...done.
0x80d8363 in SpinAcquire ()
(gdb) break exit
Breakpoint 1 at 0x2abb0532: file exit.c, line 40.
(gdb) break _exit
Breakpoint 2 at 0x2ac1e910
(gdb) cont
Continuing.

Breakpoint 1, exit (status=0) at exit.c:40
exit.c:40: No such file or directory.
(gdb) bt
#0  exit (status=0) at exit.c:40
#1  0x80d6694 in proc_exit ()
#2  0x81075ef in elog ()
#3  0x80775f6 in _bt_buildadd ()
#4  0x80777ea in _bt_merge ()
#5  0x8077af5 in _bt_leafbuild ()
#6  0x807340d in btbuild ()
#7  0x810800f in fmgr_c ()
#8  0x8108227 in fmgr ()
#9  0x807e60b in index_build ()
#10 0x807de2b in index_create ()
#11 0x8085376 in DefineIndex ()
#12 0x80e006d in ProcessUtility ()
#13 0x80de096 in pg_exec_query_dest ()
#14 0x80ddfb7 in pg_exec_query ()
#15 0x80df03c in PostgresMain ()
#16 0x80c91ba in DoBackend ()
#17 0x80c8cda in BackendStartup ()
#18 0x80c8429 in ServerLoop ()
#19 0x80c7f67 in PostmasterMain ()
#20 0x80a0986 in main ()
#21 0x2aba7cb3 in __libc_start_main (main=0x80a0920 <main>, argc=5, 
    argv=0x7ffffd34, init=0x8061360 <_init>, fini=0x810d63c <_fini>, 
    rtld_fini=0x2aab5350 <_dl_fini>, stack_end=0x7ffffd2c)
    at ../sysdeps/generic/libc-start.c:78
(gdb) cont
Continuing.

Breakpoint 2, 0x2ac1e910 in _exit ()
(gdb) bt
#0  0x2ac1e910 in _exit ()
#1  0x2abb05f8 in exit () at exit.c:70
#2  0x80d6694 in proc_exit ()
#3  0x81075ef in elog ()
#4  0x80775f6 in _bt_buildadd ()
#5  0x80777ea in _bt_merge ()
#6  0x8077af5 in _bt_leafbuild ()
#7  0x807340d in btbuild ()
#8  0x810800f in fmgr_c ()
#9  0x8108227 in fmgr ()
#10 0x807e60b in index_build ()
#11 0x807de2b in index_create ()
#12 0x8085376 in DefineIndex ()
#13 0x80e006d in ProcessUtility ()
#14 0x80de096 in pg_exec_query_dest ()
#15 0x80ddfb7 in pg_exec_query ()
#16 0x80df03c in PostgresMain ()
#17 0x80c91ba in DoBackend ()
#18 0x80c8cda in BackendStartup ()
#19 0x80c8429 in ServerLoop ()
#20 0x80c7f67 in PostmasterMain ()
#21 0x80a0986 in main ()
#22 0x2aba7cb3 in __libc_start_main (main=0x80a0920 <main>, argc=5, 
---Type <return> to continue, or q <return> to quit---
    argv=0x7ffffd34, init=0x8061360 <_init>, fini=0x810d63c <_fini>, 
    rtld_fini=0x2aab5350 <_dl_fini>, stack_end=0x7ffffd2c)
    at ../sysdeps/generic/libc-start.c:78
(gdb) cont
Continuing.

Program exited normally.
(gdb)

  10. Re: [BUGS] problem creating index in 6,5,3

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2000-01-06T19:03:55Z

    Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop@range.infoplease.com> writes:
> (gdb) bt
> #0  exit (status=0) at exit.c:40
> #1  0x80d6694 in proc_exit ()
> #2  0x81075ef in elog ()
> #3  0x80775f6 in _bt_buildadd ()
> #4  0x80777ea in _bt_merge ()
> #5  0x8077af5 in _bt_leafbuild ()
> #6  0x807340d in btbuild ()

So the darn thing *is* doing an elog(FATAL) !  If you look at
bt_buildadd (in backend/access/nbtree/nbtsort.c) there are two
calls to elog:
        elog(FATAL, "btree: failed to add item to the page in _bt_sort (1)");
        elog(FATAL, "btree: failed to add item to the page in _bt_sort (2)");
If you'd built the backend with -g then we'd know which one this
is, but at this point it probably doesn't matter much.

OK, now we have two questions: (1) why is it failing, and (2) why
isn't the elog message showing up in your postmaster log?  (You
may also be wondering (3) why isn't psql reporting the elog message,
but that one is a known bug in 6.5.* libpq --- it forgets to
report pending ERROR messages if it sees a backend disconnect.
The message ought to have made it to your postmaster log, though.)

I have to go do some real work right now :-(, but this needs looking
into.

			regards, tom lane