Thread: out of memory ...
Hello,
how fatal is it for the server/data if a server runs out of memory?
Happened on a Windows server some time ago. A transaction got too large. In the log it began with:
------------
TopMemoryContext: 37171728 total in 4046 blocks; 67640 free (4060 chunks); 37104088 used
TopTransactionContext: 24576 total in 2 blocks; 18848 free (17 chunks); 5728 used
CurTransactionContext: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 8176 free (1 chunks); 16 used
...
------------
Although all other clients had been closed no new connection was possible to terminate the session responsible for the
outof memory problem. I guess it's because this transaction had been started by a superuser ...
------------
In the end the server was shut down via the service manager.
On the next start of the server the log contained the following lines:
------------
LOG: database system was interrupted; last known up at 2010-03-26 11:22:36 CET
LOG: database system was not properly shut down; automatic recovery in progress
LOG: record with zero length at 1F/D2454CD0
------------
The data still seemed to be okay - all the other transactions made before seem to be in the database.
Is it okay to continue using the database(s) or is there a risk of hidden data corruption (fsync is on)?
Could you tell me, please?
Thank you very much,
Peter
--
GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01
2010/5/3 Jan-Peter Seifert <Jan-Peter.Seifert@gmx.de>: > Hello, > > how fatal is it for the server/data if a server runs out of memory? > > Happened on a Windows server some time ago. A transaction got too large. In the log it began with: > > ------------ > TopMemoryContext: 37171728 total in 4046 blocks; 67640 free (4060 chunks); 37104088 used > TopTransactionContext: 24576 total in 2 blocks; 18848 free (17 chunks); 5728 used > CurTransactionContext: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 8176 free (1 chunks); 16 used > ... > ------------ > > Although all other clients had been closed no new connection was possible to terminate the session responsible for theout of memory problem. I guess it's because this transaction had been started by a superuser ... > > ------------ > > In the end the server was shut down via the service manager. > > On the next start of the server the log contained the following lines: > > ------------ > LOG: database system was interrupted; last known up at 2010-03-26 11:22:36 CET > LOG: database system was not properly shut down; automatic recovery in progress > LOG: record with zero length at 1F/D2454CD0 > ------------ > > The data still seemed to be okay - all the other transactions made before seem to be in the database. > > Is it okay to continue using the database(s) or is there a risk of hidden data corruption (fsync is on)? okay to continue if your filesystem didn't have issues (if postgres start, then it is ok from its side) > > Could you tell me, please? > > Thank you very much, > > Peter > > > -- > GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! > Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01 > > -- > Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin > -- Cédric Villemain
Hello, >> ------------ >> LOG: database system was interrupted; last known up at 2010-03-26 11:22:36 CET >> LOG: database system was not properly shut down; automatic recovery in progress >> LOG: record with zero length at 1F/D2454CD0 >> ------------ >> >> The data still seemed to be okay - all the other transactions made before seem to be in the database. >> >> Is it okay to continue using the database(s) or is there a risk of hidden data corruption (fsync is on)? > > okay to continue if your filesystem didn't have issues (if postgres > start, then it is ok from its side) Sounds good. Thank you very much for your reply. Peter