Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Out of Memory - 8.2.4

From: "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Jeff Amiel" <becauseimjeff(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Out of Memory - 8.2.4
Date: 2007-08-30 13:54:26
Message-ID: e51f66da0708300654r2308bdfeu8b0d879be3e0b673@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
On 8/30/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Note that it's much better to err on the smaller values.
>
> > Extra index pass is really no problem.
>
> I beg to differ ...

Well, if Postgres tries to cut down passes by using max memory
then admin is forced to cut down maint_mem for safety reasons...

> What this may actually suggest is that autovacuum needs its own value of
> "maintenance_work_mem", or that it should automatically divide the value
> by the authorized number of workers.

+1

Autovacuum having it's own value and cutting pieces from there
and giving to vacuums is probably the easiest path.

Then the per-backend maint_mem does not need to be large.

-- 
marko

In response to

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-08-30 13:58:20
Subject: Re: Out of Memory - 8.2.4
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-08-30 13:39:52
Subject: Re: Out of Memory - 8.2.4

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group