pá 10. 2. 2023 v 23:01 odesílatel Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> napsal:
> 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 ? > 20GB RAM 20GB swap 2GB shared buffers > > -- > Justin >
