Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Issue with SHMALL parameter

From: data tanger <datatanger(at)hotmail(dot)fr>
To: <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Issue with SHMALL parameter
Date: 2012-09-18 18:07:54
Message-ID: DUB103-W42B97610A1D80A23A947A6A1940@phx.gbl (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-docs
Thank you for your answer. I think the value of shmall I have is very common cause I've seen it many times in other servers.Do you think there maybe a link between the request size of postgres and the swap size?
Here is the output of free -m
free -m             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cachedMem:          7867       1860       6007          0          5        595-/+ buffers/cache:       1258       6609Swap:         1023          2       1021
> From: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
> To: datatanger(at)hotmail(dot)fr
> CC: pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [DOCS] Issue with SHMALL parameter
> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:07:46 -0400
> data tanger <datatanger(at)hotmail(dot)fr> writes:
> > Here are the shmall and the shmax params of my server:
> > #cat /proc/sys/kernel/shmmax     68719476736
> > #cat /proc/sys/kernel/shmall     4294967296
> SHMALL is measured in pages not bytes on Linux.  I wonder if that value
> is too large and is causing an internal integer overflow in the kernel.
> 			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Shigeru HANADADate: 2012-09-19 11:06:28
Subject: Different wording in file_fdw document
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-09-18 16:07:46
Subject: Re: Issue with SHMALL parameter

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group