On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 03:28:12PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 3/4/15 9:10 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > >On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote: > >>Could the large allocation for the dead tuple array in lazy_space_alloc > >>cause problems with linux OOM?  and some other things I've read indicate > >>that a large mmap will count towards total system memory, including > >>producing a failure if overcommit is disabled. > > > >I believe that this is possible.
I have seen that in the field, albeit on a server with a 10 GiB allocation limit, years ago. > >>Would it be worth avoiding the full size allocation when we can? > > > >Maybe. I'm not aware of any evidence that this is an actual problem > >as opposed to a theoretical one. vacrelstats->dead_tuples is limited > >to a 1GB allocation, which is not a trivial amount of memory, but it's > >not huge, either. But we could consider changing the representation > >from a single flat array to a list of chunks, with each chunk capped > >at say 64MB. That would not only reduce the amount of memory that we > > I was thinking the simpler route of just repalloc'ing... the memcpy would > suck, but much less so than the extra index pass. 64M gets us 11M tuples, > which probably isn't very common. +1. Start far below 64 MiB; grow geometrically using repalloc_huge(); cap growth at vac_work_mem. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers