From: | Ekaterina Amez <ekaterina(dot)amez(at)zunibal(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Out of memory error on automatic vacuum |
Date: | 2019-11-18 14:46:03 |
Message-ID: | b5c70ce2-e1d8-dfe3-72b0-4164697db488@zunibal.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
El 18/11/19 a las 15:16, Tomas Vondra escribió:
>
> Not sure I understand. Whenever PostgreSQL process needs memory it
> requests it from the kernel by calling malloc(), and the amount of
> availabe RAM is limited. So when kernel can't provide more memory,
> it returns NULL.
>
Understood.
>
> If it finished a couple of minutes before, it's unlikely to be the
> related. But hard to say, without knowing the details.
Yeah, I thought the same but for me is too much coincidence and is
suspicious (or at least a thing to have in mind).
> No, that's just one of the memory contexts (they form a tree), using
> only 1kB of memory. What matters is the "grand total"
>
> Grand total: 1009356 bytes in 130 blocks; 436888 free (72 chunks);
> 572468 used
>
> which is ~1MB.
>
OK, in my lack of knowledge I was understanding "memory context" as the
whole message.
> Another thing you might do is adding a swap (if you don't have one
> already), as a safety.
>
>
Excuse my ignorance but... swap? You mean some mechanism that prevents
server to be unavailable by having a second instance running but not
accesible and changing from one to the other when the main fails? (It's
the best way I find to describe it, as I don't usually speak/write english).
Thanks for your time.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-11-18 15:10:33 | Re: Out of memory error on automatic vacuum |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-11-18 14:16:05 | Re: Out of memory error on automatic vacuum |