Greetings, * Jan Wieck (j...@wi3ck.info) wrote: > On 5/17/22 18:30, Stephen Frost wrote: > >This isn’t actually a solution though and that’s the problem- you end up > >using swap but if you use more than “expected” the OOM killer comes in and > >happily blows you up anyway. Cgroups are containers and exactly what kube > >is doing. > > Maybe I'm missing something, but what is it that you would actually consider > a solution? Knowing your current memory consumption doesn't make the need > for allocating some right now go away. What do you envision the response of > PostgreSQL to be if we had that information about resource pressure? I don't > see us using mallopt(3) or malloc_trim(3) anywhere in the code, so I don't > think any of our processes give back unused heap at this point (please > correct me if I'm wrong). This means that even if we knew about the memory > pressure of the system, adjusting things like work_mem on the fly may not do > much at all, unless there is a constant turnover of backends. > > So what do you propose PostgreSQL's response to high memory pressure to be?
Fail the allocation, just how most PG systems are set up to do. In such a case, PG will almost always be able to fail the transaction, free up the memory used, and continue running *without* ending up with a crash. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
