[pgpool-general: 1741] Re: [PgPool-II 3.2.4] pgpool_regclass now mandatory?

[Thomas Martin]

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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.sraoss.jp/pipermail/pgpool-general/attachments/20130514/9e1bce60/attachment.html>