From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | Alex Adriaanse <alex(at)innovacomputing(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Out of memory |
Date: | 2008-03-29 00:07:15 |
Message-ID: | 16720.1206749235@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> My guess is that the total allocated VM is fairly close to the limit of
> your configuration and that a slightly higher than normal load and a
> background autovacuum took it over the edge. My guess is that if you up
> the swap to 4GB or perhaps 8GB, you'll get a lot more room to manouver.
The bits about
> 2008-03-10 18:43:33 EDT LOG: could not fork new process for connection:
> Cannot allocate memory
certainly suggest that the problem was a global out-of-memory condition
and not just within any one process. I concur with raising swap, but
also with the upthread suggestions to cut down the number of concurrent
connections.
The segfaults (sig11s) are a bit disturbing too --- what that probably
indicates is someplace using malloc() and failing to test for failure,
neither of which is a good thing. Did you by any chance get core dumps
from those? A stack trace would be mighty useful.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ivan Sergio Borgonovo | 2008-03-29 00:15:32 | general optimisation rule for slice of table frequently accessed. |
Previous Message | Kenneth Tanzer | 2008-03-28 23:58:22 | Function for more readable function source code |