Re: PostgreSQL 8.0.6 crash - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Mark Woodward
Subject Re: PostgreSQL 8.0.6 crash
Date
Msg-id 16433.24.91.171.78.1139511821.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PostgreSQL 8.0.6 crash  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: PostgreSQL 8.0.6 crash
List pgsql-hackers
> "Mark Woodward" <pgsql@mohawksoft.com> writes:
>> Again, regardless of OS used, hashagg will exceed "working memory" as
>> defined in postgresql.conf.
>
> So?  If you've got OOM kill enabled, it can zap a process whether it's
> strictly adhered to work_mem or not.  The OOM killer is entirely capable
> of choosing a victim process whose memory footprint hasn't changed
> materially since it started (eg, the postmaster).

Sorry, I must strongly disagree here. The postgresql.conf "working mem" is
a VERY IMPORTANT setting, it is intended to limit the consumption of
memory by the postgresql process. Often times PostgreSQL will work along
side other application servers on the same system, infact, may be a
sub-part of application servers on the same system. (This is, in fact, how
it is used on one of my site servers.)

Clearly, if the server will use 1000 times this number (Set for 1024K, but
exceeds 1G) this is broken, and it may cause other systems to fail or
perform very poorly.

If it is not something that can be fixed, it should be clearly documented.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 8.0.6 crash
Next
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: Feature request - Add microsecond as a time unit for interval