| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hans-Jürgen Schönig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, eg(at)cybertec(dot)at |
| Subject: | Re: Is it a memory leak in PostgreSQL 7.4beta? |
| Date: | 2003-09-10 14:13:14 |
| Message-ID: | 5163.1063203194@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I said:
> This doesn't seem to quite square
> with your explanation though --- surely the number should go to 8000 and
> change? The man page for top says these numbers are in kilobytes ...
> but if they were really measured in, say, 4K pages, then we'd be talking
> about 26M of shared memory touched, which might be plausible when you
> consider shared libraries.
Never mind --- further testing shows that top does report in kilobytes.
I made a silly mistake in writing my test query that prevented it from
using as many buffers as I expected. When I write something that really
does use all 1000 buffers, SHARE goes to 10392, which is right about
what you'd expect.
So I think this mystery is solved. Back to chasing real bugs ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-10 14:37:43 | Re: TCP/IP with 7.4 beta2 broken? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-10 14:03:18 | Re: Is it a memory leak in PostgreSQL 7.4beta? |