Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Check Pointer - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From itishree sukla
Subject Re: Check Pointer
Date
Msg-id CAL-g6VRhxV=0SQoTSotmr6qzW_-sUd=ynjJzyFqdUxcEbafVnw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Check Pointer  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>)
Responses Re: Check Pointer
Re: Check Pointer
List pgsql-performance
Tree view
Thanks for the quick response. Below is the out put of Top Commnd.

3971 postgres  20   0 8048m 303m 301m S    0  0.9   0:04.34 /usr/lib/postgresql/9.2/bin/postgres -D /var/lib/postgresql/9.2/main -c config_file=/etc/postgre
 3972 postgres  20   0 66828 1820  708 S    0  0.0   1:36.37 postgres: logger process                                                                       
 3974 postgres  20   0 8054m 7.6g 7.6g S    0 24.1   0:56.59 postgres: checkpointer process                                                                 
 3975 postgres  20   0 8051m 895m 891m S    0  2.8   0:04.98 postgres: writer process                                                                       
 3976 postgres  20   0 8051m   9m 9072 S    0  0.0   0:35.17 postgres: wal writer process                                                                   
 3977 postgres  20   0 70932 3352  716 S    0  0.0   0:05.19 postgres: stats collector process                                                              
1

Postgresql =9.2.3



On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
On 30.05.2013 15:09, itishree sukla wrote:
In our server Check pointer process is consuming 8 GB of memory, what could
be the possible reason? Can any one please help.

Are you sure you're measuring the memory correctly? The RES field in top output, for example, includes shared memory, ie. the whole buffer cache. Shared memory isn't really "consumed" by the checkpointer process, but shared by all postgres processes.

- Heikki

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Check Pointer
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2?