Regards,
Neha Sharma

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

> On 20 July 2017 at 15:00, Neha Sharma <neha.sha...@enterprisedb.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Craig,
>>
>> I had done a fresh initdb,the default parameter configuration was used. I
>> was setting few set of parameters while startup by the below command.
>>
>> ./postgres -d postgres -c shared_buffers=$shared_bufs -N 200 -c
>> min_wal_size=15GB -c max_wal_size=20GB -c checkpoint_timeout=900 -c
>> maintenance_work_mem=1GB -c checkpoint_completion_target=0.9 &
>>
>> Now I have modified the script a bit with Robert's suggestion as below.
>> Instead of starting it with postgres binary i have set it in conf file and
>> starting the server with pg_ctl. I am waiting for the results,once the core
>> dump is generated will share the details.
>>
>
> Thanks.
>
> To verify that you do get a coredump, you might want to consider sending a
> kill -SEGV to a backend and make sure that it actually dumps core and you
> can find the core.
>
> Ideally you'd actually set the coredumps to include shmem (see
> coredump_filter in http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man5/core.5.html), but
> with 8GB shared_buffers that may not be practical. It'd be very useful if
> possible.
>
> If this is wraparound-related, as it appears to be, you might get faster
> results by using a custom pgbench script for one or more workers that just
> runs txid_current() a whole lot. Or jump the server's xid space forward.
>
Thanks. Will put together suggestions to get the result.

>
> I've got a few other things on right now but I'll keep an eye out and hope
> for a core dump.
>
> --
>  Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
>  PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
>

Reply via email to