On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 01:54:17PM -0800, Ron Mayer wrote: > Decibel! wrote: > > > > Yes, this problem goes way beyond OOM. Just try and configure > > work_memory aggressively on a server that might see 50 database > > connections, and do it in such a way that you won't swap. Good luck. > > That sounds like an even broader and more difficult problem > than managing memory. > > If you have 50 connections that all want to perform large sorts, > what do you want to have happen? > > a) they each do their sorts in parallel with small amounts > of memory for each; probably all spilling to disk? > b) they each get a big chunk of memory but some have to > wait for each other? > c) something else? > > Seems (a)'s already possible today with setting small work_mem. > Seems (b)'s already possible today with a larger work_mem and > pg_pool.
b is not possible with pgpool; you're assuming that all connections are trying to use work_mem. > Stepping back from the technical details, what do you think > should happen. (though perhaps it should be taken to a different > thread) Yes... it's been discussed in the past. As Simon said, the first step is deciding that this is a problem, then we can try and figure out a solution. -- Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
pgpaWHvcVK2VX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
