From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | paulo matadr <saddoness(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)br>, GENERAL <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Understand this error |
Date: | 2009-05-01 15:50:21 |
Message-ID: | 13161.1241193021@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Note that it's not very likely that PostgreSQL was the process that used
> up all your memory. It was just unlucky enough to be picked as the one
> to be killed, because the OOM killer is terrible at estimating which
> process is using the most memory when programs like PostgreSQL have
> allocated large blocks of shared memory.
It's worse than that: the OOM killer is broken by design, because it
intentionally picks on processes that have a lot of large children
--- without reference to the fact that a lot of the "largeness" might
be the same shared memory block. So the postmaster process very often
looks like a good target to it, even though killing the postmaster will
in fact free a negligible amount of memory.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | PostGre Newbie | 2009-05-01 16:22:59 | Online Backups PostGre |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2009-05-01 15:31:25 | Re: Connecting to a postgreSQL database with windows CE over wi-fi; failing gracefully |