| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, Mark Williamson <thetazzbot(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: statement_timeout is not cancelling query |
| Date: | 2009-12-15 18:23:40 |
| Message-ID: | 21570.1260901420@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> If we're to do anything about this, it is spilling the trigger queue so
> it doesn't eat an unbounded amount of memory.
Of course, the reason nothing much has been done about that is that
by the time your trigger queue is long enough to cause such an issue,
you're screwed anyway --- actually executing all those triggers would
take longer than you'll want to wait.
I tend to agree with the upthread opinion that if you're on a platform
that responds so ungracefully to memory hogs, you'd be best off using
ulimit to confine backends to a moderate amount of memory space.
But this *is* a platform problem; it's just one more example of how
poorly designed and implemented Linux's memory handling is.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-15 18:27:07 | Re: statement_timeout is not cancelling query |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-12-15 17:59:59 | Re: statement_timeout is not cancelling query |