Re: PostgreSQL 8.0.6 crash

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 8.0.6 crash
Date: 2006-02-10 19:08:46
Message-ID: 554.1139598526@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> That's why merely allocating tons of swap doesn't necessarily protect you.
> It's still possible for a process (or several processes if you allocate more
> swap than you have address space) to mmap gigabytes of memory without touching
> it and then start touching those pages.

So? If the swap exists to back that memory, there's no problem. It
might be slow, but it will not fail.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rick Gigger 2006-02-10 19:10:32 Re: pg_hba.conf alternative
Previous Message Michael Paesold 2006-02-10 19:06:53 Spaces in psql output (Was: FW: PGBuildfarm member snake Branch HEAD Status changed)