On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 03:22:09PM -0700, david(at)lang(dot)hm wrote:
> I disagree with you. I think goof Postgres operation is so highly dependant
> on caching as much data as possible that disabling overcommit (and throwing
> away a lot of memory that could be used for cache) is a solution that's as
> bad or worse than the problem it's trying to solve.
Ok, but the danger is that the OOM killer kills your postmaster. To
me, this is a cure way worse than the disease it's trying to treat.
YMMD &c. &c.
+1 503 667 4564 x104
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Matthew Wakeling||Date: 2008-08-28 13:26:59|
|Subject: Re: select on 22 GB table causes "An I/O error occured
while sending to the backend." exception|
|Previous:||From: H. Hall||Date: 2008-08-28 09:46:06|
|Subject: Re: indexing for distinct search in timestamp based table|