On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 07:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Cutting his value for shared_buffers (currently about 800MB) might be
>> wise too. I'm not sure what the effectively available address space
>> for a win32 process is, but if there's any inefficiency in the way
>> the address space is l
On 25 Aug 2010, at 7:39, Jeremy Palmer wrote:
> Thanks for the tips. I would move to LINUX if it was an option :(
I'd say if your memory requirements are really as high as you suggest, then
anything that allows you to run a 64-bit version of Postgres is a better option
than 32-bit Windows. Be
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Jeremy Palmer wrote:
> Thanks for the tips. I would move to LINUX if it was an option :(
It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. Plus
once you've got a working, performant machine, the boss might turn a
blind eye.
> I will bring the numbe
: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 5:34 PM
To: Jeremy Palmer
Cc: Tom Lane; Magnus Hagander; pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Alvaro Herrera
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block is
still in use
I would be WAY cheaper in time and effort, to just build a simple 64
bit linux
I wrote:
> Cutting his value for shared_buffers (currently about 800MB) might be
> wise too. I'm not sure what the effectively available address space
> for a win32 process is, but if there's any inefficiency in the way
> the address space is laid out, those numbers could be enough to be
> trouble
010 5:28 PM
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: Jeremy Palmer; Magnus Hagander; pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Alvaro
> Herrera
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block
> is still in use
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Jeremy Palmer wrote:
> Thanks. So can you explain why 512mb is bad decision here given that I only
> have 3.7GB of RAM?
Because it's per session. Even with just a hand ful of processes
running you can chew up most of your memory real fast. Also, win32
pgsql is
eremy Palmer; Magnus Hagander; pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Alvaro Herrera
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block is
still in use
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Marlowe writes:
>> 512M is still REALLY high for a 32 bit pos
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Marlowe writes:
>> 512M is still REALLY high for a 32 bit postgresql. Have you tried
>> something in the 16Meg range?
>
> Cutting his value for shared_buffers (currently about 800MB) might be
> wise too. I'm not sure what the effectively
Scott Marlowe writes:
> 512M is still REALLY high for a 32 bit postgresql. Have you tried
> something in the 16Meg range?
Cutting his value for shared_buffers (currently about 800MB) might be
wise too. I'm not sure what the effectively available address space
for a win32 process is, but if ther
Palmer
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:52 PM
> To: 'Magnus Hagander'; Tom Lane
> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Alvaro Herrera; Chris Crook
> Subject: RE: [GENERAL] Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block
> is still in use
>
> Yes I do realise that te
'Magnus Hagander'; Tom Lane
> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Alvaro Herrera; Chris Crook
> Subject: RE: [GENERAL] Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block
> is still in use
>
> Yes I do realise that temp_buffers is per backend. I set it like this because
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Palmer
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:52 PM
To: 'Magnus Hagander'; Tom Lane
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org; Alvaro Herrera; Chris Crook
Subject: RE: [GENERAL] Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block is
still in use
Yes I do re
Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block is
still in use
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 15:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeremy Palmer writes:
>> Could it be that I have too much memory allocated for postgresql? My
>> resource settings are:
>> shared_buffers = 94952
>>
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 15:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeremy Palmer writes:
>> Could it be that I have too much memory allocated for postgresql? My
>> resource settings are:
>> shared_buffers = 94952
>> temp_buffers = 1GB
>> work_mem = 19339
>> maintenance_work_mem = 191845
>> max_stack_depth = 2MB
>
Jeremy Palmer writes:
> Could it be that I have too much memory allocated for postgresql? My resource
> settings are:
> shared_buffers = 94952
> temp_buffers = 1GB
> work_mem = 19339
> maintenance_work_mem = 191845
> max_stack_depth = 2MB
1GB for temp_buffers is a *LOT*. You do realize that's p
almer; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block is
still in use
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> This is a memory dump and could be unrelated (or maybe not).
>> TopMemoryContext: 268428304 total in 26 blocks; 5528 free (22 chunks
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> This is a memory dump and could be unrelated (or maybe not).
>> TopMemoryContext: 268428304 total in 26 blocks; 5528 free (22 chunks);
>> 268422776 used
That's an unreasonably large amount of stuff in TopMemoryContext :-(.
I wonder what caused that? It's not clear that
Excerpts from Jeremy Palmer's message of mar ago 17 22:59:08 -0400 2010:
>
> I'm getting infrequent backend crashes on a windows instance of PostgreSQL.
> The error I get is in the log below. It seems to relate to the share memory
> each time. Does anyone have any ideas what the problem is here,
No they all got killed off.
-Original Message-
From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:mag...@hagander.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 8:06 PM
To: Jeremy Palmer
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block is
still in use
On
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 04:59, Jeremy Palmer wrote:
>
> I'm getting infrequent backend crashes on a windows instance of PostgreSQL.
> The error I get is in the log below. It seems to relate to the share memory
> each time. Does anyone have any ideas what the problem is here, or what
> additiona
I'm getting infrequent backend crashes on a windows instance of PostgreSQL. The
error I get is in the log below. It seems to relate to the share memory each
time. Does anyone have any ideas what the problem is here, or what additional
things I can do to get more information out next time the ba
22 matches
Mail list logo
