On 3/5/15 7:36 PM, wambacher wrote:
Jim Nasby-5 wrote
>On 3/5/15 2:06 PM, wambacher wrote:
>Crashed? Or hit by the OOM killer? What's the log say?
killed by OOM, but has only 1.2 GB mem, which is ok to me.
Ok, but...
>What's the largest memory size that a vacuum/autovac against that table
>gets to compared to other backends? You meantioned 80-90% of memory
>before, but I don't know if that was for analyze or what.
vacuum
Which is it? Is the vacuum process is using 1.2GB (5% of memory) or is
it using 90% (~22GB)?
BTW, with 1GB shared buffers and 64MB maintenance_work_mem top reporting
a size of 1.2GB doesn't surprise me at all (assuming it's including
shared memory in there).
This is starting to sound like a regular OOM problem. Have you tried the
steps in
http://postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/kernel-resources.html#LINUX-MEMORY-OVERCOMMIT
?
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
