Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73A1E1337BAE for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 11:05:11 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 74581-09 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 15:05:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sd-17937.dedibox.fr (sd-17937.dedibox.fr [88.191.100.74]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57BE01337BA5 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 11:05:03 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.10.2] (ASte-Genev-Bois-153-1-56-198.w81-249.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.249.150.198]) by sd-17937.dedibox.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 783AF3B8F5; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 16:05:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4D500A1A.3000307@lelarge.info> Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 16:04:58 +0100 From: Guillaume Lelarge User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); fr; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julius Tuskenis CC: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: possible memory leak in Server Status window References: <4D4FADCA.6040604@nsoft.lt> <4D4FC0E6.7060302@lelarge.info> <4D4FD41E.2050909@nsoft.lt> In-Reply-To: <4D4FD41E.2050909@nsoft.lt> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201102/32 X-Sequence-Number: 36671 Le 07/02/2011 12:14, Julius Tuskenis a écrit : > 2011.02.07 11:52, Guillaume Lelarge rašė: >> Did you lower each report? because each individual report has its own >> timer. >> > I'm sorry, I have only one report (Server status window). When you say > "lower" do you mean "minimize" ? No, I have left it on screen. Or do you > mean refresh interval? As I have single server status window, there is > no window left with shorter interval. > There are a number of reports in the server status window. Each has their own refresh interval. > Could the answer be in Locks window? I noticed, that even when I set > refresh interval to 10min, lock list is updated after the interval of > approximately 1 minute. Is this expected behavior? And when having > refresh interval = 10min the events of increase to VM become rare. If I > hit refresh button - i can observe the increase. > You need to set specifically its refresh interval. But you may have found the issue. I still need to look at the code. > I still was not able to reproduce on other servers. Maybe it is related > to the error we found Friday night in System log "The server was unable > to allocate from the system nonpaged pool because the pool was empty." I > tried to google - found an explanation that this could mean there is a > memory leak in kernel or in drivers. Maybe something is wrong in > system... This is the first time I encounter such a problem. > So do I. -- Guillaume http://www.postgresql.fr http://dalibo.com