Re: [GENERAL] huge RAM use in multi-command ALTER of table heirarchy

From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] huge RAM use in multi-command ALTER of table heirarchy
Date: 2018-04-28 16:00:32
Message-ID: 20180428160032.GN20071@telsasoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 07:26:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > It's probably a bit late in the v10 cycle to be taking any risks in
> > this area, but I'd vote for ripping out RememberToFreeTupleDescAtEOX
> > as soon as the v11 cycle opens, unless someone can show an example
> > of non-broken coding that requires it. (And if so, there ought to
> > be a regression test incorporating that.)

I'm resending this in case it's been forgotten about and in case there's still
time this cycle to follow through in removing RememberToFreeTupleDescAtEOX.

..And because I ran into it again earlier this month, ALTERing an 1600 column
table with 500 children (actually while rewriting to reduce to 12 childs); on a
dedicated DB VM with 8GB RAM:

Mar 7 11:44:52 telsaDB kernel: Out of memory: Kill process 47490 (postmaster) score 644 or sacrifice child
Mar 7 11:44:52 telsaDB kernel: Killed process 47490, UID 26, (postmaster) total-vm:6813528kB, anon-rss:5212288kB, file-rss:2296kB

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 02:54:54PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just ran into this again in another context (see original dicussion, quoted
> below).
>
> Some time ago, while initially introducting non-default stats target, I set our
> non-filtering columns to "STATISTICS 10", lower than default, to minimize the
> size of pg_statistic, which (at least at one point) I perceived to have become
> bloated and causing issue (partially due to having an excessive number of
> "daily" granularity partitions, a problem I've since mitigated).
>
> The large number of columns with non-default stats target was (I think) causing
> pg_dump --section=pre-data to take 10+ minutes, which makes pg_upgrade more
> disruptive than necessary, so now I'm going back and fixing it.
>
> [pryzbyj(at)database ~]$ time sed '/SET STATISTICS 10;$/!d; s//SET STATISTICS -1;/' /srv/cdrperfbackup/ts/2017-10-17/pg_dump-section\=pre-data |psql -1q ts
> server closed the connection unexpectedly
> This probably means the server terminated abnormally
> before or while processing the request.
> connection to server was lost
>
> [pryzbyj(at)database ~]$ dmesg |tail -n2
> Out of memory: Kill process 6725 (postmaster) score 550 or sacrifice child
> Killed process 6725, UID 26, (postmaster) total-vm:13544792kB, anon-rss:8977764kB, file-rss:8kB
>
> So I'm hoping to encourage someone to commit the change contemplated earlier.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeremy Finzel 2018-04-28 16:52:03 Query function arg data types ONLY (no arg names)
Previous Message Steven Lembark 2018-04-28 15:16:53 Re: Rationale for aversion to the central database?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2018-04-28 16:08:26 Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux)
Previous Message John Naylor 2018-04-28 15:51:03 inconsistency and inefficiency in setup_conversion()