| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |
| Date: | 2013-10-10 22:40:17 |
| Message-ID: | 52572CD1.9020806@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> I don't follow that. Why would using a connection pooler change the multiples
>> of work_mem that a connection would use?
>
> I assume that a connection pooler would keep processes running longer,
> so even if they were not all using work_mem, they would have that memory
> mapped into the process, and perhaps swapped out.
Yes, and then this is when it *really* matters what OS you're running,
and what release. FreeBSD and Solaris++ don't overallocate RAM, so
those long-running connections pin a lot of RAM eventually. And for
Linux, it's a question of how aggressive the OOM killer is, which kinda
depends on distro/version/sysadmin settings.
When I configure pgbouncer for Illumos users, I specifically have it
rotate out old connections once an hour for this reason.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-10-10 22:43:42 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-10-10 22:36:17 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |