Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 537B9B5DBEC for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 13:37:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 94784-03 for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 16:37:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3978BB5DC07 for ; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 13:37:23 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id p77GbMPt023191; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 12:37:22 -0400 (EDT) To: jtkells@verizon.net cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: pg_dump: Error message from server: ERROR: out of shared memory on one system works fine on another In-reply-to: <1set379ibe1biogcgbq7se6k0m5610b5ds@4ax.com> References: <1set379ibe1biogcgbq7se6k0m5610b5ds@4ax.com> Comments: In-reply-to jtkells@verizon.net message dated "Sun, 07 Aug 2011 12:23:32 -0400" Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 12:37:22 -0400 Message-ID: <23190.1312735042@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.683 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.783 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201108/20 X-Sequence-Number: 38007 jtkells@verizon.net writes: > I am having a problem running "pg_dump -s database "on one system > while it runs fine on another system. > when I run the following dump on the Ubuntu system I get : > pg_dump -s DB >/tmp/DB_schema_only.dmp > pg_dump: WARNING: out of shared memory > pg_dump: SQL command failed > pg_dump: Error message from server: ERROR: out of shared memory > HINT: You might need to increase max_locks_per_transaction. > pg_dump: The command was: LOCK TABLE schema_x.x_table IN ACCESS SHARE > MODE > I don't understand what I am doing wrong since I have given a larger > amount of resources on the Ubuntu system and continue to fail. Am I > missing anything else? The HINT told you what you need to do: increase max_locks_per_transaction. The exact point at which you run out of shared memory after exceeding max_locks_per_transaction will vary depending on a number of hard-to-predict factors (in this case I'll bet 32-bitness vs 64-bitness has a lot to do with it), so the fact that it fails on one machine and not another is not that surprising. You can be sure though that if the databases are identical, the "working" machine has not got a lot of headroom; so you'd be well advised to apply the max_locks_per_transaction adjustment to both. regards, tom lane