Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block is still in use
От
Tom Lane
Тема
Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block is still in use
Дата
Msg-id
12732.1282714497@sss.pgh.pa.us
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block
is still in use Jeremy Palmer <JPalmer@linz.govt.nz>
Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block
is still in use Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block is still in use Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block is still in use Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block
is still in use Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block
is still in use Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block
is still in use Jeremy Palmer <JPalmer@linz.govt.nz>
Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block
is still in use Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block
is still in use Jeremy Palmer <JPalmer@linz.govt.nz>
Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block
is still in use Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block is still in use Alban Hertroys <dalroi@solfertje.student.utwente.nl>
Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block
is still in use Jeremy Palmer <JPalmer@linz.govt.nz>
Re: Win32 Backend Cash - pre-existing shared memory block
is still in use Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
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. Actually, a bit of googling turns up this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx which says that the available userspace address range for a win32 process is only *two* gig (although you can get to three using tricks that I doubt are in his PG build). Take 800M+500M off the top, and it's not too hard to credit that it might be tricky to swing a cat in the remainder; especially given that it sounds like he's running complex queries that could want to eat a lot of working RAM themselves. IOW, these numbers are too big for your system. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления
От: Scott Marlowe
Дата:
От: Jeremy Palmer
Дата: