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

Re: PostgreSQL on Cygwin

From: Jason Tishler <Jason(dot)Tishler(at)dothill(dot)com>
To: Terry Carlin <terry(at)greatbridge(dot)com>
Cc: Pgsql-Cygwin <pgsql-cygwin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL on Cygwin
Date: 2001-07-10 19:43:49
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-cygwin

[Sorry for the sluggish response time -- those pesky holidays and
vacations are always getting in the way...]

On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 09:11:09PM +0000, Terry Carlin wrote:
> On 7/4/01, 3:31:37 PM, Jason(dot)Tishler(at)dothill(dot)com (Jason Tishler) wrote 
> regarding Re: PostgreSQL on Cygwin:
> > On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 09:08:09PM +0000, Terry Carlin wrote:
> > > I posted this message on the postgresql.ports.cygwin list and have not
> > > heard anything from anybody.  Tom Lane suggested that I contact you
> > > directly with this problem.
> > I monitor the pgsql-cygwin(at)postgresql(dot)org mailing list very closely
> > and I did not see any of your posts.  To what mailing list does
> > "postgresql.ports.cygwin" correspond?
> I don't subscribe to the mailing list, I posted to 
> comp.databases.postgresql.ports.cygwin news group.

My guess is that comp.databases.postgresql.ports.cygwin is tied to
pgsql-cygwin(at)postgresql(dot)org and vice versa, but it appears that messages
get lost between the two occasionally.

Given your current role, I would recommend subscribing to pgsql-ports
and pgsql-cygwin -- the traffic is fairly light.

> > My WAG is that you have found a Cygwin resource leak -- my best guess is
> > open handles.  Since the activity of a benchmark application is by its
> > very nature intensive and "long lived" as compared to someone typing
> > away at bash, it would be much more likely for you to stumble over a
> > resource leak than the typical Cygwin user.
> This is why I was running the benchmarks against PostgreSQL on CYGWIN.
> > Try adding more columns (e.g, Handle Count) in Task Manager to determine
> > whether or not my hypothesis is correct.  Another option is to use
> > Performance Monitor.
> I added the Handle Count to the Task Manager and found some interesting 
> stuff.  These are the memory and handle statistics from this run.
> This machine has 256 mb ram
> PostgreSQL Memory size Process 1 6,632k, # of handles 756,889
> PostgreSQL Memory size Process 2 6,636k, # of handles 474,435
> PostgreSQL Memory size Process 3 6,640k, # of handles 247,353
> PostgreSQL Memory size Process 4 6,632k, # of handles 56,515 
> Does look like we ran out of handles

I would like to reproduce your resource leak problem without using
Benchmark Factory.  Can you suggest a way to "emulate" your testing by
driving psql or using JDBC?  If I can reproduce the problem, then I may
be able to plug the leak.  If so, then I will submit a patch to Cygwin
for consideration.  Otherwise, I can post a hopefully minimal test case
that demonstrates the problem to the core Cygwin developers.


Jason Tishler
Director, Software Engineering       Phone: 732.264.8770 x235
Dot Hill Systems Corp.               Fax:   732.264.8798
82 Bethany Road, Suite 7             Email: Jason(dot)Tishler(at)dothill(dot)com
Hazlet, NJ 07730 USA                 WWW:


pgsql-cygwin by date

Next:From: Jason TishlerDate: 2001-07-10 20:43:28
Subject: Re: initdb failure - postgres hangs with 100% CPU
Previous:From: Jason TishlerDate: 2001-07-10 18:48:12
Subject: Re: initdb failure - postgres hangs with 100% CPU

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group