From: | Joe Maldonado <jmaldonado(at)webehosting(dot)biz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: info on strange error messages on postgresql |
Date: | 2005-04-29 12:16:34 |
Message-ID: | 427225A2.1080002@webehosting.biz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote:
>Joe Maldonado <jmaldonado(at)webehosting(dot)biz> writes:
>
>
>>I have these messages on my 7.4.7 database log...
>>TopMemoryContext: 87494704 total in 10676 blocks; 179400 free (61
>>chunks); 87315304 used
>>TopTransactionContext: 57344 total in 3 blocks; 648 free (5 chunks);
>>56696 used
>>DeferredTriggerXact: 0 total in 0 blocks; 0 free (0 chunks); 0 used
>>...
>>
>>
>
>What's at the top and bottom of that?
>
>
Above this there is just a few expected error messages about a table
already existing, unfortunately this log happened between logrotates and
the log filled the logs partition to 100% so I do not have the post dump
messages.
The last entry in the log is ...
pg_temp_1486707604: 1024 total in 1 blocks; 640 free
>PG prints out a memory stats dump like this when it runs out of memory.
>The dump itself isn't much use to anyone but a developer; what you want
>to look into is what triggered it. The error message appearing just
>after (or maybe just before, I forget) should be relevant.
>
>
>
>>followed by about 16GB of the following type of entries...
>>pg_temp_1486707494: 2048 total in 1 blocks; 768 free (0 chunks); 1280 used
>>
>>
>
>Could you have been trying to vacuum a ridiculously large number of
>tables, or some such?
>
>
At first I suspected vacuum to be the culprit of the 16G of data though
this db is being vacuumed by pg_autovacuum with (-s 900 -d 3 -S 0 -A 0
-V 0) as options and it has recently undergone a vacuum full and reindex
operation.
> regards, tom lane
>
>
One other data point is that the shared buffers are very high
max_connections = 512
shared_buffers = 100000
though there are no other high memory consumers on that machine and it
has 4G of physical RAM
-Joe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Relyea, Mike | 2005-04-29 12:18:33 | Re: Postgresql and VBA vs Python |
Previous Message | Matko Andjelinic | 2005-04-29 10:08:01 | Re: oid or schema name of current plpgsql function |