From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Casey Duncan <casey(at)pandora(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #2428: ERROR: out of memory, running INSERT SELECT |
Date: | 2006-05-12 07:04:20 |
Message-ID: | 1147417461.28245.66.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 20:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Casey Duncan <casey(at)pandora(dot)com> writes:
> > On May 11, 2006, at 4:42 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> As your database is defined, this SQL statement will return
> >> approximately 4 trillion rows, by my calculation. As you say, it
> >> returns no rows at all when the database is empty.
>
> > *slaps forehead* I totally missed the "!=" in the where clause, Doh!
> > Thanks for hitting me with a clue-stick.
>
> I'm still wondering why you got "out of memory", though. I'd have
> expected that to grind for a really long time, gradually filling your
> disk, until you got an out-of-disk-space kind of error; if you didn't
> notice and stop it first. There aren't (supposed to be) any long-term
> memory leaks in query processing, other than than the known issue of
> pending trigger events, which you say you haven't got on this table.
Seems broken either way, OOM or OOD. We need a way to stop runaway
queries from happening in the first place.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thanh Thao Nguyen | 2006-05-12 07:11:17 | backup database by pg_dump |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-12 00:14:54 | Re: BUG #2428: ERROR: out of memory, running INSERT SELECT statement |