Here's the current status. We installed postgres on an XP machine, 2002 SP3. (Same as my computer, which never has a problem.) We tried to do a backup of the database on the old computer, to copy the data to the new computer. The backup failed with the same problem mentioned in the subject line. So we zipped up the data directory and unzipped it on the XP computer. We then attempted to paste in the "large" block of text (200 lines of plain ascii, 49000 bytes) and got the same problem as before. Note that the load on the server and on postgres is very low, and that the problem can be recreated with 100% certainty when we paste certain text into certain fields. This computer is running "Symantec Endpoint Protection", with the proactive threat feature turned off. Question: Is it possible that there's corruption in the database which is being incorrectly reported as "Permission denied"? Perhaps the original problem on the other computer created the corruption? Or the corruption came from another source and on both computers creates the incorrect message? We could of course recreate pretty much the same database. We're in development mode now: it was loaded with data from the legacy system extracted a few months ago and since then there has been additional data entered and changed as people have played with and tested the application. Is this a random event? A bug? Advice please on what to do next. John On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 08:37:02 -0400, John T. Dow wrote: >On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:25:49 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > >>On 8/06/2010 9:11 AM, John T. Dow wrote: >>> OP here.... >>> >>> We removed AVG from the computer and rebooted. >>> >>> Same problem. >> >>OK, good to know. Thanks very much for testing that, and my apologies >>for recommending something that didn't work out. Of course, it would >>have been hard to progress without eliminating that possible factor. >> >>> Could it be 2000 Server? SP4? I've seen reports of other problems that went away depending on the version of Windows. >> >>Well, certainly I'd expect that Pg on Windows 2000 server gets about >>zero regular testing. Why would you deploy a server OS that's already 10 >>years out of date, went EOL five years ago, and lost even the option of >>paid extended support this year? >> >>http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-au&x=14&y=11&p1=7274 >> > > > > > >Good point. > >It's not my server, it's my client's server, and I don't know the history of it. > >They have mentioned another computer which runs XP I believe. It's dedicated to a single task and could double as the database server, although I don't think it has any RAID. I will suggest that we try installing Postgres on that computer and see if the problem goes away. If so, they might choose to make that their solution (perhaps adding another hard drive and a RAID controller). The application, daily backups, and WAL files could all live on the original server. > >If they go that route, we'd never know for certain what the original problem was. > >I'll post back after anything is done. > >JOhn > > > > > > > > > >>It'd be interesting to investigate this issue ... but win2k server isn't >>exactly easy to come by. Anyone on the list got a win2k server (or >>license) around they can do some experimenting on? All I have here is >>NT4 (not kidding - legacy system) and Win2k8 plus the usual desktop >>suspects. >> >>-- >>Craig Ringer >> >> >>-- >>Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) >>To make changes to your subscription: >>http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > > > >-- >Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) >To make changes to your subscription: >http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
