From: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Jasen Betts <jasen(at)xnet(dot)co(dot)nz>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Clients disconnect but query still runs |
Date: | 2009-07-30 12:16:13 |
Message-ID: | 1248956173.24829.81.camel@pcd12478 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
[this is getting off topic]
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 13:44 +0200, Craig Ringer wrote:
> A host with a runaway process hogging memory shouldn't be dying. It
> should really be killing off the problem process, or the problem process
> should be dying its self after failing to allocate requested memory. If
> this isn't the case, YOU HAVE TOO MUCH SWAP.
>
> After all, swap is useless if there's so much that using it brings the
> system to a halt.
In theory you're right, in practice I can't control any of this - it's
the client boxes, I control the DB. The most I can do about it is to
friendly ask the colleagues in charge with that to make sure it won't
happen again, and then still there will be cases like a virtual machine
just crashing.
> > I will probably have to check out now the network connection
> > parameters in the postgres configuration, never had a look at them
> > before... in any case >2 hours mentioned in an earlier post seems a bad
> > default to me.
>
> It's the OS's default. PostgreSQL just doesn't change it.
Well, then looks like I will have to learn a bit about TCP keep-alive
and how linux handles it...
Cheers,
Csaba.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Mead | 2009-07-30 12:31:04 | Re: Slony and local machine slave..(supernewbie question) |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2009-07-30 12:14:25 | Re: Clients disconnect but query still runs |