Re: strange parallel query behavior after OOM crashes

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: strange parallel query behavior after OOM crashes
Date: 2017-03-30 19:02:35
Message-ID: CAEepm=25dryuuuMzG=ZonYu6dVZ55eJxEKuVCCkqP1P4w+DAqQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While doing some benchmarking, I've ran into a fairly strange issue with OOM
> breaking LaunchParallelWorkers() after the restart. What I see happening is
> this:
>
> 1) a query is executed, and at the end of LaunchParallelWorkers we get
>
> nworkers=8 nworkers_launched=8
>
> 2) the query does a Hash Aggregate, but ends up eating much more memory due
> to n_distinct underestimate (see [1] from 2015 for details), and gets killed
> by OOM
>
> 3) the server restarts, the query is executed again, but this time we get in
> LaunchParallelWorkers
>
> nworkers=8 nworkers_launched=0
>
> There's nothing else running on the server, and there definitely should be
> free parallel workers.
>
> 4) The query gets killed again, and on the next execution we get
>
> nworkers=8 nworkers_launched=8
>
> again, although not always. I wonder whether the exact impact depends on OOM
> killing the leader or worker, for example.

I don't know what's going on but I think I have seen this once or
twice myself while hacking on test code that crashed. I wonder if the
DSM_CREATE_NULL_IF_MAXSEGMENTS case could be being triggered because
the DSM control is somehow confused?

--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2017-03-30 19:11:38 Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes.
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2017-03-30 18:57:29 Re: pgsql: Default monitoring roles