Re: mail to pgsql-general lost? - Mailing list pgsql-www
From | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Subject | Re: mail to pgsql-general lost? |
Date | |
Msg-id | CABUevEwtGC4OOcHg2m+KR6o+1+Se26NR93XcD_SiNw6bzAr2iQ@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: mail to pgsql-general lost? (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Responses |
Re: mail to pgsql-general lost?
Re: mail to pgsql-general lost? |
List | pgsql-www |
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of mié ago 15 18:09:13 -0400 2012: >> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:00 AM, hubert depesz lubaczewski >> <depesz@depesz.com> wrote: >> > hi, >> > mailed some time ago to pgsql-general, and while I see that it was >> > delivered to postgresql.org servers, I didn't get it back from list, and >> > I don't see it in archive - while I do see other mails on the list. >> > >> > any chance someone could look what has happened to it: >> > >> > times are in CEST timezone, so it was ~ 1 hour ago. >> > >> > 2012-08-15 22:44:42 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA <= depesz@depesz.com H=andy.depesz.com (depesz.com) [88.198.47.100] P=esmtpa A=login:depesz@depesz.comS=63911 id=20120815204441.GA30152@depesz.com T="Problem with connection spikes, and slow, very slow,io access" >> > 2012-08-15 22:44:43 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA magus.postgresql.org [2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29] Network is unreachable >> > 2012-08-15 22:44:51 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA => pgsql-general@postgresql.org R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp H=makus.postgresql.org[98.129.198.125] >> > 2012-08-15 22:44:51 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA Completed >> >> >> This is hte message with messageid being delivered into majordomo. >> Unfortunately, majordomo has no logging at all that I know of. But >> Alvaro has sometimes been able to track down where messages are as >> they go through there :) Alvaro? (our local session id on the >> majordomo server is 1T1kSS-0000A1-Fh) > > What do you mean majordomo has no logging? It sure does. In fact, we I didn't say that. I said "that I know of". I've looked *everywhere* for a logfile. Silly me thinking a unix perlscript would have an actual logfile. Per what you write here, it seems to be in one of the databases... > have lots of info about that email just on Mj2 alone, without even have > to look at Exim logs: > > $ $MJSHCMD report-full pgsql-general 2d post | less > ... > post pgsql-general depesz@depesz.com fail 20:44 > (post to pgsql-general) > resend 690058653d9b25bcb737038d12207678e6ef1ea3 1.509 > ... > post pgsql-general depesz@depesz.com succeed 09:42 > (post to pgsql-general) > resend 6fbeb650df71e791ac2e10a5b67505eccfb71f4e 163.296 > ... > > $ $MJSHCMD sessioninfo 690058653d9b25bcb737038d12207678e6ef1ea3 > The following information was recorded for session number > 690058653d9b25bcb737038d12207678e6ef1ea3. > > Source: resend > PID: 678 > > Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([98.129.198.125]) > by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) > (envelope-from <depesz@depesz.com>) > id 1T1kSS-0000A1-Fh > for pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:44:53 +0000 > Received: from andy.depesz.com ([88.198.47.100] helo=depesz.com) > by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) > (envelope-from <depesz@depesz.com>) > id 1T1kSL-0001py-7x > for pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:44:51 +0000 > Received: from andy.depesz.com ([88.198.47.100] helo=depesz.com) > by depesz.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) > (envelope-from <depesz@depesz.com>) > id 1T1kSI-0003vU-BA > for pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:44:42 +0200 > Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:44:42 +0200 > From: hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@depesz.com> > Sender: depesz@depesz.com > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Problem with connection spikes, and slow, very slow, io access > Message-ID: <20120815204441.GA30152@depesz.com> > Reply-To: depesz@depesz.com > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > Content-Disposition: inline > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) > X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) > > 0: (post to pgsql-general) > > > > So we know it *failed*, though we don't know *why* ... it does seem that > Majordomo does not log this info. Hah. that would be the most important reason for it to log it of course.. Is there a way to find out how big it was? IIRC, depesz wrote something about cutting the size down for the second message - maybe it got rejected because it was too big? -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/