From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | David Pacheco <dap(at)joyent(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: postmaster deadlock while logging after syslogger exited |
Date: | 2017-11-17 03:06:23 |
Message-ID: | 23680.1510887983@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2017-11-16 21:39:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What might be worth thinking about is allowing the syslogger process to
>> inherit the postmaster's OOM-kill-proofness setting, instead of dropping
>> down to the same vulnerability as the postmaster's other child processes.
> Hm. I'm a bit scared about that - it doesn't seem that inconceivable
> that various backends log humongous multi-line messages, leading to
> syslogger *actually* taking up a fair amount of memory. Note that we're
> using plain stringinfos that ereport(ERROR) out of memory situations,
> rather than failing more gracefully.
True, but there's no hard limits on the postmaster's memory consumption
either ... and if the syslogger does get killed on such a basis, we have
at the least lost a bunch of log output. On the whole I think we'd be
better off trying to prevent OOM kills on the syslogger. (That doesn't
preclude other mitigation measures.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-11-17 03:20:56 | Re: postmaster deadlock while logging after syslogger exited |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-11-17 02:54:38 | Re: postmaster deadlock while logging after syslogger exited |