Re: One PG process eating more than 40GB of RAM and getting killed by OOM
От | Jean-Christophe Boggio |
---|---|
Тема | Re: One PG process eating more than 40GB of RAM and getting killed by OOM |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 416d1607-4650-4624-b8e5-46f8a674aebf@thefreecat.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: One PG process eating more than 40GB of RAM and getting killed by OOM (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: One PG process eating more than 40GB of RAM and getting killed by OOM
Re: One PG process eating more than 40GB of RAM and getting killed by OOM |
Список | pgsql-admin |
Le 13/10/2023 à 18:48, Jeff Janes a écrit : > Yes, turning off overcommit doesn't play with graphical environments, > in my experience. But a production database probably shouldn't be > running on a system like that. On non-prod systems, you can either > turn it off temporarily, or you could try to catch the problem before > it becomes fatal and get the log with pg_log_backend_memory_contexts. As I said, this is my dev laptop and no, I would never waste precious RAM this way on a production server ;-) > We can see what the problem is (over 137,000 concurrent tuple sorts), > but we can't tell what is ultimately causing it. You will need to dig > into, or disclose, the contents of the procedure. I have no problem disclosing this code and data to the PG dev team (this is client data though so please keep it for yourselves). Where can I send you a link to the dump ? Best, JC
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: