From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Juan José Santamaría Flecha <juanjo(dot)santamaria(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: logical decoding : exceeded maxAllocatedDescs for .spill files |
Date: | 2020-02-07 18:40:46 |
Message-ID: | 20200207184046.ihvi2dmalmllbvie@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2020-02-04 10:15:01 +0530, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> I performed the same test in pg11 and reproduced the issue on the
> commit prior to a4ccc1cef5a04 (Generational memory allocator).
>
> ulimit -s 1024
> ulimit -v 300000
>
> wal_level = logical
> max_replication_slots = 4
>
> [...]
> After that, I applied the "Generational memory allocator" patch and
> that solved the issue. From the error message, it is evident that the
> underlying code is trying to allocate a MaxTupleSize memory for each
> tuple. So, I re-introduced the following lines (which are removed by
> a4ccc1cef5a04) on top of the patch:
> --- a/src/backend/replication/logical/reorderbuffer.c
> +++ b/src/backend/replication/logical/reorderbuffer.c
> @@ -417,6 +417,9 @@ ReorderBufferGetTupleBuf(ReorderBuffer *rb, Size tuple_len)
>
> alloc_len = tuple_len + SizeofHeapTupleHeader;
>
> + if (alloc_len < MaxHeapTupleSize)
> + alloc_len = MaxHeapTupleSize;
Maybe I'm being slow here - but what does this actually prove? Before
the generation contexts were introduced we avoided fragmentation (which
would make things unusably slow) using a a brute force method (namely
forcing all tuple allocations to be of the same/maximum size).
Which means that yes, we'll need more memory than necessary. Do you
think you see anything but that here?
It's good that the situation is better now, but I don't think this means
we need to necessarily backpatch something nontrivial?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mahendra Singh Thalor | 2020-02-07 18:57:40 | Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2020-02-07 18:37:35 | Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables |