Re: Error: "could not fork new process for connection: Cannot allocate memory" - Mailing list pgsql-admin

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Error: "could not fork new process for connection: Cannot allocate memory"
Date
Msg-id 574264.1608600463@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Error: "could not fork new process for connection: Cannot allocate memory"  (frank picabia <fpicabia@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Error: "could not fork new process for connection: Cannot allocate memory"  (frank picabia <fpicabia@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-admin
frank picabia <fpicabia@gmail.com> writes:
> My VMware admin has come back with a graph showing memory use over
> the period in question.  He has looked over other indicators
> and there are no alarms triggered on the system.
> It jives with what Cacti reported.  Memory was never exhausted
> and used only 50% of allocated RAM at the most.

> If it's not a configuration issue in Postgres, and both internal and
> external tools
> show memory was not consumed to the point of firing off the "cannot fork"
> error, would that mean that there is a bug in either the kernel or Postgres?

[ shrug... ]  Postgres is just reporting to you that the kernel wouldn't
perform a fork().  Since you've gone to great lengths to show that
Postgres isn't consuming excessive resources, either this is a kernel bug
or you're running into some kernel-level (not Postgres) allocation limit.
I continue to suspect the latter.  Desultory googling shows that VMware
can be configured to enforce resource allocation limits, so maybe you
should be taking a hard look at your VMware settings.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-admin by date:

Previous
From: frank picabia
Date:
Subject: Re: Error: "could not fork new process for connection: Cannot allocate memory"
Next
From: Sreejith P
Date:
Subject: Memory Issues.