Hi Tom,
thanks for brilliant analysis - now we know how to avoid the problem.
As a side note: from the user's point of view it would be really nice to
know that the error was caused by auto-ANALYZE - at least on 8.2 it's
not that obvious from the server log. It was the first message with
given backend PID so it seemed to me as it's problem during backend
startup - we have log_connections to on...
Thanks,
Kuba
Dne 9.11.2010 2:04, Tom Lane napsal(a):
> I looked into the out-of-memory problem reported by Jakub Ouhrabka here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-11/msg00353.php
>
> It's pretty simple to reproduce, even in HEAD; what you need is an index
> expression that computes a bulky intermediate result. His example is
>
> md5(array_to_string(f1, ''::text))
>
> where f1 is a bytea array occupying typically 15kB per row. Even
> though the final result of md5() is only 32 bytes, evaluation of this
> expression will eat about 15kB for the detoasted value of f1, roughly
> double that for the results of the per-element output function calls
> done inside array_to_string, and another 30k for the final result string
> of array_to_string. And *none of that gets freed* until
> compute_index_stats() is all done. In my testing, with the default
> stats target of 100, this gets repeated for 30k sample rows, requiring
> something in excess of 2GB in transient space. Jakub was using stats
> target 500 so it'd be closer to 10GB for him.
>
> AFAICS the only practical fix for this is to have the inner loop of
> compute_index_stats() copy each index expression value out of the
> per-tuple memory context and into the per-index "Analyze Index" context.
> That would allow it to reset the per-tuple memory context after each
> FormIndexDatum call and thus clean up whatever intermediate result trash
> the evaluation left behind. The extra copying is a bit annoying, since
> it would add cycles while accomplishing nothing useful for index
> expressions with no intermediate results, but I'm thinking this is a
> must-fix.
>
> Comments?
>
> regards, tom lane