pá 10. 2. 2023 v 21:18 odesílatel Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> napsal:
> Hi, > > On 2023-02-10 21:09:06 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > Just a small note - I executed VACUUM ANALYZE on one customer's database, > > and I had to cancel it after a few hours, because it had more than 20GB > RAM > > (almost all physical RAM). > > Just to make sure: You're certain this was an actual memory leak, not just > vacuum ending up having referenced all of shared_buffers? Unless you use > huge > pages, RSS increases over time, as a process touched more and more pages in > shared memory. Of course that couldn't explain rising above > shared_buffers + > overhead. > > > > The memory leak is probably not too big. This database is a little bit > > unusual. This one database has more than 1 800 000 tables. and the same > > number of indexes. > > If you have 1.8 million tables in a single database, what you saw might > just > have been the size of the relation and catalog caches. > can be Regards Pavel > > Greetings, > > Andres Freund >
