Re: possible memory leak in VACUUM ANALYZE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: possible memory leak in VACUUM ANALYZE
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRBO9kDK0FxVUUzJN816=D92G5Zcm9MC78pXgcC7J772Aw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: possible memory leak in VACUUM ANALYZE  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: possible memory leak in VACUUM ANALYZE
List pgsql-hackers


pá 10. 2. 2023 v 21:18 odesílatel Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> napsal:
Hi,

On 2023-02-10 21:09:06 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Just a small note - I executed VACUUM ANALYZE on one customer's database,
> and I had to cancel it after a few hours, because it had more than 20GB RAM
> (almost all physical RAM).

Just to make sure: You're certain this was an actual memory leak, not just
vacuum ending up having referenced all of shared_buffers?  Unless you use huge
pages, RSS increases over time, as a process touched more and more pages in
shared memory.  Of course that couldn't explain rising above shared_buffers +
overhead.


> The memory leak is probably not too big. This database is a little bit
> unusual.  This one database has more than 1 800 000 tables. and the same
> number of indexes.

If you have 1.8 million tables in a single database, what you saw might just
have been the size of the relation and catalog caches.

can be

Regards

Pavel
 

Greetings,

Andres Freund

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: possible memory leak in VACUUM ANALYZE
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Killing off removed rels properly