Re: icps, shmmax and shmall - Shared Memory tuning
От
Tom Lane
Тема
Re: icps, shmmax and shmall - Shared Memory tuning
Дата
Msg-id
27598.1019846792@sss.pgh.pa.us
Ответ на
icps, shmmax and shmall - Shared Memory tuning (dorian dorian)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
icps, shmmax and shmall - Shared Memory tuning dorian dorian <dorian37076@yahoo.com>
Re: icps, shmmax and shmall - Shared Memory tuning Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: icps, shmmax and shmall - Shared Memory tuning dorian dorian <dorian37076@yahoo.com>
Re: icps, shmmax and shmall - Shared Memory tuning Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: icps, shmmax and shmall - Shared Memory tuning Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>
Re: icps, shmmax and shmall - Shared Memory tuning Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: icps, shmmax and shmall - Shared Memory tuning Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>
Re: icps, shmmax and shmall - Shared Memory tuning Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: icps, shmmax and shmall - Shared Memory tuning Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>
Re: icps, shmmax and shmall - Shared Memory tuning Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh@pop.jaring.my>
Re: icps, shmmax and shmall - Shared Memory tuning Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>
Re: icps, shmmax and shmall - Shared Memory tuning dorian dorian <dorian37076@yahoo.com>
dorian dorian writes: > Apr 26 09:43:16 mito logger: IpcMemoryCreate: > shmget(key=5432001, size=137175040, 03600) failed: Invalid argument > ------ Shared Memory Segments -------- > key shmid owner perms bytes > nattch status > 0x0052e2c1 98307 postgres 600 137175040 28 This is very strange. The postmaster should have re-used the existing shmem segment, rather than trying to create a new one as it's evidently doing. Or, if it didn't do that, it should've tried to create a new segment with a different key, not re-use the conflicting key. There's some kind of bug here. Are you up for tracing through IpcMemoryCreate with a debugger to see what's going wrong? If you just want to get going again, you can remove that segment with ipcrm (I think "ipcrm shm 98307" is the syntax to use on Linux) and then the postmaster should start. But it would be useful to understand the failure mode so we can fix it. FWIW, I do not see any comparable problem on rh7.2 (2.4.7-10 kernel) --- the postmaster restarts perfectly cleanly after doing a kill -9 on one of its children. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления