On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Matthew Wakeling <matthew@flymine.org> wrote:
>
>> Another point is that from a business perspective, a database that has
>> stopped responding is equally bad regardless of whether that is because the
>> OOM killer has appeared or because the machine is thrashing. In both cases,
>> there is a maximum throughput that the machine can handle, and if requests
>> appear quicker than that the system will collapse, especially if the
>> requests start timing out and being retried.
>
> But there's a HUGE difference between a machine that has bogged down
> under load so badly that you have to reset it and a machine that's had
> the postmaster slaughtered by the OOM killer. In the first situation,
> while the machine is unresponsive, it should come right back up with a
> coherent database after the restart.
>
> OTOH, a machine with a dead postmaster is far more likely to have a
> corrupted database when it gets restarted.
wait a min here, postgres is supposed to be able to survive a complete box
failure without corrupting the database, if killing a process can corrupt
the database it sounds like a major problem.
David Lang
>> Likewise, I would be all for Postgres managing its memory better. It would
>> be very nice to be able to set a maximum amount of work-memory, rather than
>> a maximum amount per backend. Each backend could then make do with however
>> much is left of the work-memory pool when it actually executes queries. As
>> it is, the server admin has no idea how many multiples of work-mem are going
>> to be actually used, even knowing the maximum number of backends.
>
> Agreed. It would be useful to have a cap on all work_mem, but it
> might be an issue that causes all the backends to talk to each other,
> which can be really slow if you're running a thousand or so
> connections.
>
>