Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Prabhat Sahu <prabhat(dot)sahu(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)
Date: 2018-03-08 16:45:06
Message-ID: 6666.1520527506@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Prabhat Sahu <prabhat(dot)sahu(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:51 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> That looks like the background worker got killed by the OOM killer. How
>> much memory do you have in the machine where this occurred?

> I have ran the testcase in my local machine with below configurations:
> Environment: CentOS 7(64bit)
> HD : 100GB
> RAM: 4GB
> Processor: 4

If you only have 4GB of physical RAM, it hardly seems surprising that
trying to use 8GB of maintenance_work_mem would draw the wrath of the
OOM killer.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2018-03-08 16:57:05 Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE of partition key
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-03-08 16:30:10 Re: Server won't start with fallback setting by initdb.