| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alexander B(dot)" <burbello3000(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)br> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Process |
| Date: | 2007-04-10 14:36:35 |
| Message-ID: | 25797.1176215795@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
"Alexander B." <burbello3000(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)br> writes:
> I have a Postgres server that has more than 500MB ( shared_buffers =
> 64000) and looking at TOP command, I couldn't understand why appears
> some process with 536m and other with 23m.
> What's the difference between?
Some versions of top only count the pages of shared memory that a
given process has actually touched so far. So for example in the
shared buffer arena, the reported usage will rise as the process runs
longer and chances to use buffers other than the ones it's used already.
It's pretty misleading, because it makes normal behavior look like a
memory leak :-(
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aaron Bono | 2007-04-10 20:22:14 | Re: [pgadmin-support] Motivations for PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-10 14:30:52 | Re: Problems with precompiled pgsql on mac |