Please don't cross post to different lists.
Pgsql-general <[email protected]>,
PgAdmin Support <[email protected]>,
PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]"
<[email protected]>,
Postgres Performance List <[email protected]>,
Pg Bugs <[email protected]>,
Pgsql-admin <[email protected]>,
Pgadmin-hackers <[email protected]>,
PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>,
Pgsql-pkg-yum <[email protected]>
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 05:46:28PM +0000, Nagaraj Raj wrote:
> after upgrade Postgres to v9.6.11 from v9.6.9 DB running out of memory issues
> no world load has changed before and after upgrade.
>
> spec: RAM 16gb,4vCore
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 06:10:08PM +0000, Nagaraj Raj wrote:
> Below are the same configurations ins .conf file before and after updagrade
> show max_connections; = 1743
> show shared_buffers = "4057840kB"
> show work_mem = "4MB"
> show maintenance_work_mem = "259MB"
> Any bug reported like this or suggestions on how to fix this issue? I
> appreciate the response..!!
>
> I could see below error logs and due to this reason database more often going
> into recovery mode,
What do you mean "more often" ? Did the crash/OOM happen before the upgrade,
too ?
> 2020-02-17 22:34:32 UTC::@:[20467]:LOG: server process (PID32731) was
> terminated by signal 9: Killed
> 2020-02-17 22:34:32 UTC::@:[20467]:DETAIL:Failed process was running:
> selectinfo_starttime,info_starttimel,info_conversationid,info_status,classification_type,intentname,confidencescore,versions::text,messageidfrom
> salesdb.liveperson.intents where info_status='CLOSE' AND ( 1=1 ) AND ( 1=1)
That process is the one which was killed (in this case) but maybe not the
process responsible for using lots of *private* RAM. Is
salesdb.liveperson.intents a view ? What is the query plain for that query ?
(Run it with "explain").
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SlowQueryQuestions#EXPLAIN_.28ANALYZE.2C_BUFFERS.29.2C_not_just_EXPLAIN
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Guide_to_reporting_problems
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 06:10:08PM +0000, Nagaraj Raj wrote:
> I identified one simple select which consuming more memory and here is the
> query plan,
>
> "Result (cost=0.00..94891854.11 rows=3160784900 width=288)"" -> Append
> (cost=0.00..47480080.61 rows=3160784900 width=288)"" -> Seq Scan on
> msghist (cost=0.00..15682777.12 rows=3129490000 width=288)""
> Filter: (((data -> 'info'::text) ->> 'status'::text) = 'CLOSE'::text)""
> -> Seq Scan on msghist msghist_1 (cost=0.00..189454.50 rows=31294900
> width=288)"" Filter: (((data -> 'info'::text) ->>
> 'status'::text) = 'CLOSE'::text)"
This is almost certainly unrelated. It looks like that query did a seq scan
and accessed a large number of tuples (and pages from "shared_buffers"), which
the OS then shows as part of that processes memory, even though *shared*
buffers are not specific to that one process.
--
Justin
