"Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 7:56 PM, John Cheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The state of the server when I sent this e-mail was that there were
>> two remaining connections/postgres subprocesses. I used kill -9 to
>> stop those two subprocesses. Then post
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 7:56 PM, John Cheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am running postgresql 8.3, I was not aware of the 3 options (smart,
> fast, or immediate). So it used the default - "fast".
>
> The state of the server when I sent this e-mail was that there were
> two remaining connections/
I am running postgresql 8.3, I was not aware of the 3 options (smart,
fast, or immediate). So it used the default - "fast".
The state of the server when I sent this e-mail was that there were
two remaining connections/postgres subprocesses. I used kill -9 to
stop those two subprocesses. Then postg
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 7:12 PM, John Cheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We had a run away process on our database box that used up all the
> physical and all the virtual memory (swap). This caused the RedHat
> Linux oom-killer to kill many processes, including some Postgres ones.
> Postgres went i
