Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Put a ulimit command in the server start script? Depending on the
>> details of the start script you might need to put it in the postgres
>> user's .profile instead, but it's certainly doable.
> This may be a stupid quest
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Err, sorry, I quoted the wrong part. I meant, how would you rlimit
>> the server memory usage?
>
> Put a ulimit command in the server start script? Depending on the
> details of the start script you might need to put it i
Robert Haas writes:
> Err, sorry, I quoted the wrong part. I meant, how would you rlimit
> the server memory usage?
Put a ulimit command in the server start script? Depending on the
details of the start script you might need to put it in the postgres
user's .profile instead, but it's certainly
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Alvaro Herrera writes:
If we're to do anything about this, it is spilling the trigger queue so
it doesn't eat an unbounded amount of memory.
>>>
>>> Of course
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>>> If we're to do anything about this, it is spilling the trigger queue so
>>> it doesn't eat an unbounded amount of memory.
>>
>> Of course, the reason nothing much has been done about that is tha
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> If we're to do anything about this, it is spilling the trigger queue so
>> it doesn't eat an unbounded amount of memory.
>
> Of course, the reason nothing much has been done about that is that
> by the time your trigger
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> If we're to do anything about this, it is spilling the trigger queue so
> it doesn't eat an unbounded amount of memory.
Of course, the reason nothing much has been done about that is that
by the time your trigger queue is long enough to cause such an issue,
you're screwed
Robert Haas escribió:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> This is an
> >> issue that other people have run into in the past, and I don't think
> >> we have a good solution. I wonder if we should put some kind of a
>
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I suppose that I could fix this by getting rid of my swap partition
> altogether, but that seems a rather extreme solution, and it's
> certainly not the way most UNIX/Linux systems I run across are
> configured, if for no other reason than that
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I didn't know that, but it I think by the time malloc returns 0
>> usually other bad things are happening. I don't think that's really
>> an answer.
>
> Only if, as Craig said and you dis
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I didn't know that, but it I think by the time malloc returns 0
> usually other bad things are happening. I don't think that's really
> an answer.
Only if, as Craig said and you disputed, you have overcommit enabled
or lots of swap.
There is
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> This is an
>> issue that other people have run into in the past, and I don't think
>> we have a good solution. I wonder if we should put some kind of a
>> limit in place so that queries
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> This is an
> issue that other people have run into in the past, and I don't think
> we have a good solution. I wonder if we should put some kind of a
> limit in place so that queries like this will at least fail relatively
> gracefully with a
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Craig Ringer
wrote:
> On 15/12/2009 12:35 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
>
>> So what happened is, the above update never completed and the Postgresql
>> service consumed all available memory. We had to forcefully reboot the
>> machine
>
> That means your server is m
On 15/12/2009 12:35 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
So what happened is, the above update never completed and the Postgresql
service consumed all available memory. We had to forcefully reboot the
machine
That means your server is misconfigured. PostgreSQL should never consume
all available memory
15 matches
Mail list logo
