Yes, perhaps it is related to it, and the cause is the same. But they
mention here a special type inet.
Best regards,
Otto
2011/12/22 Rafael Martinez
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/22/2011 12:29 AM, Havasvölgyi Ottó wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Can you find some relati
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/22/2011 12:29 AM, Havasvölgyi Ottó wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Can you find some relation between the memory usage and insert
> statements? 9.1.2 has memory problems with inserts (even the simplest
> ones) on Linux and Windows too, I could produce it. U
Hello,
Can you find some relation between the memory usage and insert statements?
9.1.2 has memory problems with inserts (even the simplest ones) on Linux
and Windows too, I could produce it. Using pgbench also shows it. Some
memory is not reclaimed.
I could produce it also with 8.4.9 on Linux, I
Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Rafael Martinez
> wrote:
>> As long as I know, all the databases are using the default, "read
>> committed".
>
> Note that backups run in serializable mode.
In 9.1 they default to running in "repeatable read". You can choose
the --seria
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Rafael Martinez
wrote:
> As long as I know, all the databases are using the default, "read
> committed".
Note that backups run in serializable mode.
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscripti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/21/2011 12:48 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 19/12/2011 11:04 PM, Rafael Martinez wrote:
>> Any ideas about why this dramatic change in memory usage when the only
>> thing apparently changed from our side is the postgres version?
>>
> It'd be inter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/20/2011 12:15 PM, Cédric Villemain wrote:
> Le 19 décembre 2011 16:04, Rafael Martinez a écrit
> :
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> I am sending this email to ask if anyone has noticed a change in how
>> a s
On 19/12/2011 11:04 PM, Rafael Martinez wrote:
Any ideas about why this dramatic change in memory usage when the only
thing apparently changed from our side is the postgres version?
It'd be interesting to know how much of your workload operates with
SERIALIZABLE transactions, as the behavior of
Le 19 décembre 2011 16:04, Rafael Martinez a écrit :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello
>
> I am sending this email to ask if anyone has noticed a change in how
> a server running postgreSQL 9.1 uses and allocates memory compared to
> older versions.
>
> We upgraded all ou
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 17:04, Rafael Martinez wrote:
> * Sudden decrease of swap when running backup/vacuum+analyze jobs
Do you know for certain that this memory use is attributed to
vacuum/analyze/backup, or are you just guessing? You should isolate
whether it's the vacuum or a backup process/b
Wow, upgrading 3 major releases at a go. :) It would probably be
useful to use the helpful:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Guide_to_reporting_problems
to get the information that is needed to the right people.
Regards,
Ken
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 04:04:54PM +0100, Rafael Martinez wrote:
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello
I am sending this email to ask if anyone has noticed a change in how
a server running postgreSQL 9.1 uses and allocates memory compared to
older versions.
We upgraded all our systems from 8.3 to 9.1 a couple of weeks ago, and
we have experience
12 matches
Mail list logo