From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | frank picabia <fpicabia(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Error: "could not fork new process for connection: Cannot allocate memory" |
Date: | 2020-12-22 01:27:43 |
Message-ID: | 574264.1608600463@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
frank picabia <fpicabia(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> My VMware admin has come back with a graph showing memory use over
> the period in question. He has looked over other indicators
> and there are no alarms triggered on the system.
> It jives with what Cacti reported. Memory was never exhausted
> and used only 50% of allocated RAM at the most.
> If it's not a configuration issue in Postgres, and both internal and
> external tools
> show memory was not consumed to the point of firing off the "cannot fork"
> error, would that mean that there is a bug in either the kernel or Postgres?
[ shrug... ] Postgres is just reporting to you that the kernel wouldn't
perform a fork(). Since you've gone to great lengths to show that
Postgres isn't consuming excessive resources, either this is a kernel bug
or you're running into some kernel-level (not Postgres) allocation limit.
I continue to suspect the latter. Desultory googling shows that VMware
can be configured to enforce resource allocation limits, so maybe you
should be taking a hard look at your VMware settings.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sreejith P | 2020-12-22 07:32:04 | Memory Issues. |
Previous Message | frank picabia | 2020-12-22 01:13:39 | Re: Error: "could not fork new process for connection: Cannot allocate memory" |