| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, James Tomson <james(at)pushd(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Eric Jensen <ej(at)pushd(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: invalid memory alloc request size from pg_stat_activity? |
| Date: | 2019-05-07 15:14:27 |
| Message-ID: | 28926.1557242067@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Hmm, but 102400 is only 100kB, nowhere near the 1GB-1 limit, so there's
> something odd going on there.
I can reproduce the described behavior by also setting max_connections
to something around 16K.
Now, it seems pretty silly to me to be burning in excess of 1GB of shmem
just for the current-query strings, and then that much again in every
backend that reads pg_stat_activity. But should we be telling people they
can't do it? I'm working on a patch to use MemoryContextAllocHuge for
the "localactivity" buffer in pgstat_read_current_status. It might seem
dumb now, but perhaps in ten years it'll be common.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nick Anderson | 2019-05-07 15:26:41 | RE: RE: Re: Re: BUG #15769: The database cluster intialisation failed. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-05-07 14:59:30 | Re: invalid memory alloc request size from pg_stat_activity? |