Re: Is it a memory leak in PostgreSQL 7.4beta?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hans-Jürgen Schönig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, eg(at)cybertec(dot)at
Subject: Re: Is it a memory leak in PostgreSQL 7.4beta?
Date: 2003-09-01 12:43:35
Message-ID: 29204.1062420215@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> I can hardly imagine that the backend started working with 9mb of
> memory. what did you do that PostgreSQL needed so much memory from the
> beginning???

On some platforms, "top" seems to count the Postgres shared memory block
as part of the memory space of each backend. If it does so in Mark's
system then that would be a pretty reasonable initial report.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-09-01 12:46:09 Re: Index creation takes for ever
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-09-01 12:41:44 Re: Preliminary notes about hash index concurrency (long)