On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 09:23:11PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: > pá 10. 2. 2023 v 21:18 odesílatel Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> napsal: > > > > On 2023-02-10 21:09:06 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > Just a small note - I executed VACUUM ANALYZE on one customer's database, > > > and I had to cancel it after a few hours, because it had more than 20GB > > > RAM > > > (almost all physical RAM). > > > > Just to make sure: You're certain this was an actual memory leak, not just > > vacuum ending up having referenced all of shared_buffers? Unless you use > > huge > > pages, RSS increases over time, as a process touched more and more pages in > > shared memory. Of course that couldn't explain rising above > > shared_buffers + overhead. > > > > > The memory leak is probably not too big. This database is a little bit > > > unusual. This one database has more than 1 800 000 tables. and the same > > > number of indexes. > > > > If you have 1.8 million tables in a single database, what you saw might just > > have been the size of the relation and catalog caches. > > can be
Well, how big was shared_buffers on that instance ? -- Justin
