From: | Rodrigo Barboza <rodrigombufrj(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
Cc: | "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Question about maintenance_work_mem and shared_buffer |
Date: | 2013-05-22 12:52:51 |
Message-ID: | CANs8QJbnGfdN3ir2x+JBZtAwkJ60CpNBhWTdm9X9sD-3unp_0A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:14 AM, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>wrote:
> Rodrigo Barboza wrote:
> > I have a doubt.
> > I have a 32-bit postrgesql running with 2.5gb of shared_buffer.
> > And I have maintenance_work_mem = 1gb and autovacuum_max_workers = 3.
> > How maintenance_work_mem is related to shared_buffer?
> > If the 3 workers uses 1gb, will the database crash?
> > Or their memory usage are separated from each other?
>
> Your doubt is quite in place, as a process on a 32-bit architecture
> cannot address more than 4GB of memory.
>
> See http://rhaas.blogspot.jp/2011/05/sharedbuffers-on-32-bit-systems.html
>
> shared_buffers plus the private memory of a backend shouldn't
> exceed 3GB.
>
> So I'd go for shared_buffers = 2GB and maintenance_work_mem much
> smaller than 1GB.
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
>
Perfect.
Thanks, guys!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dev Kumkar | 2013-05-22 18:24:16 | Re: [ODBC] ODBC constructs |
Previous Message | lakkireddy | 2013-05-22 10:04:55 | Re: Query is stuck |