| From: | daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Automatically setting work_mem |
| Date: | 2006-04-22 21:20:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20060422212032.GD14283@sonic.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 01:49:25PM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 01:14:42PM -0700, David Gould wrote:
>
> > To avoid running out of swap and triggering the oom killer we have
> > had to reduce work_mem below what we prefer.
>
> Dunno about your work_mem, but you can make sure the OOM killer
> doesn't kill you as follows <http://lwn.net/Articles/104185/>.
Or I could run with overcommit turned off, but we like overcommit because
things like vaccuum appear to allocate maint_work_mem when they start, so
if that is set at say 100 Mb it will allocate 100 Mb even to vacuum a 2
page table. Overcommit lets this sort of thing get by without createing
a need for even more swap.
-dg
--
David Gould daveg(at)sonic(dot)net
If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-22 22:16:13 | Re: Question about the MemoryContext |
| Previous Message | Gevik Babakhani | 2006-04-22 21:14:17 | Question about the MemoryContext |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-04-23 03:04:15 | Re: Additional current timestamp values |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2006-04-22 20:49:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Automatically setting work_mem |