| From: | Ari Halberstadt <ari(at)shore(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump core dump, upgrading from 6.5b1 to 5/24 snapshot |
| Date: | 1999-05-26 21:41:42 |
| Message-ID: | v04003a00b37219d0afb8@[207.244.108.97] |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>...
>Will fix both problems this evening.
Thanks!
>> The dumped data file is 15MB (no -d or -D option) or 22MB (with -D). The
>> core file is 13.8MB, which sounds like a memory leak in pg_dump.
>
>Not necessarily --- are the large text fields in a multi-megabyte table?
Yes, it's a 15MB file for the table.
>When you're using -D, pg_dump just does a "SELECT * FROM table" and then
>iterates through the returned result, which must hold the whole table.
>(This is another reason why I prefer not to use -d/-D ... the COPY
>method doesn't require buffering the whole table inside pg_dump.)
The -d/-D options are out now for my nightly backups. (Foolish of me to
have used them with backups in the first place!)
-- Ari Halberstadt mailto:ari(at)shore(dot)net <http://www.magiccookie.com/>
PGP public key available at <http://www.magiccookie.com/pgpkey.txt>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-05-26 22:18:50 | Re: AW: [HACKERS] create index updates nrows statistics |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-05-26 21:09:30 | Re: [HACKERS] NUMERIC regression test? |