Re: Postmaster processes running out of control?
От | Nigel J. Andrews |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Postmaster processes running out of control? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.21.0203220056480.6141-100000@ponder.fairway2k.co.uk обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Postmaster processes running out of control? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Postmaster processes running out of control?
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes: > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 02:10:08PM +0000, Nigel J. Andrews wrote: > >> (6.5.1 I think postgres, since upgraded to 7.2 on FreeBSD 3.3-STABLE) > >> > >> Why am I saying this? No idea. Just not sure why a 90MB footprint for a DB > >> backend would be so shocking. > > > I think as someone else pointed out, it's probably all shared memory any and > > so may not be a problem. That doesn't solve your basic problem though. > > Yeah, the number reported by ps should be viewed with suspicion until > you know for certain whether it counts the shared memory segment or not. > (In my experience, on some platforms it does and on some it doesn't.) That I considered somewhat immaterial since the process was using the memory. That's what normally killed the process, using up all available memory including swap and still requiring more. > However, I think the real issue here is probably just 6.5's well known > problems with intra-query memory leaks. If Nigel can reproduce the > difficulty on 7.2 then I'd be more interested in looking into it... Good point, I hadn't tried it since the upgrade becuase that wasn't why I upgraded (don't worry I've got a _long_ post on that subject waiting to be sent), I tightened up limits for the generation of the SQL string in the application before then. However, I have just tried it with 7 poster_names listed and top never reported even 8MB for the postgres footprint. I won't give the EXPLAIN output because it's not interesting and it would almost be an overlap with the contents of my long, pending post. FWIW, the table has >1 million rows and the list of names I just gave the query includes some of the highest volume posters, including the top one with 55,000 rows in the table. There is an index on the poster_name and one on the time columns. Thanks for the comments, I didn't even know about the 6.5 memory leak. Nigel Andrews Logictree Systems Limited
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: