| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, "Vitaly V(dot) Voronov" <wizard_1024(at)tut(dot)by>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #15144: *** glibc detected *** postgres: postgres smsconsole [local] SELECT: double free or corruption (!pre |
| Date: | 2018-04-16 17:09:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20180416170943.7ksthbn2r4iuurqn@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2018-04-16 14:03:40 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> > This now seems unnecessary, since it's already evident from your "bt
> > full" output that the query involved in the crash was "select count(*)
> > from pg_buffercache where isdirty".
>
> Hmm, so is the Zabbix monitoring running that query frequently?
> Because, as I recall, pg_buffercache is pretty heavy on the system,
> since it needs to acquire all the bufmgr locks simultaneously?
>
> In other words, this seems a terrible query to be running in zabbix.
Can be extremely useful however, to predict how much longer your
workload's hot data set fits into cache. That's worth the cost in a
number of cases... Either way, a crash is clearly something separate.
> I have vague memories of somebody submitting a version of this code
> that returned approximate answers, good enough for monitoring ...
That might have been me, but I don't recall the details anymore...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-04-16 17:13:27 | Re: BUG #15144: *** glibc detected *** postgres: postgres smsconsole [local] SELECT: double free or corruption (!pre |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-04-16 17:03:40 | Re: BUG #15144: *** glibc detected *** postgres: postgres smsconsole [local] SELECT: double free or corruption (!pre |