DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
	:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=bUYbeqI4jc6wJs71inDH/YGLIGO2kO4nE/fL4Y+6YL+Uohw/Uda3Cx8ZArc2Mq3eM4
	Z9pIMEnAJFw/1DU4KuGkLOxdSRelVkrL2lB9jKXq0l6gCEzmcFWk+sWwxEwWzqP40JhJ
	d9/kbfS65APb4Tb2ywtD/WIFMA/Bz1JqYIxaA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20100503111556.18910@gmx.net>
References: <20100503111556.18910@gmx.net>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?C=E9dric_Villemain?= <cedric.villemain.debian@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 13:56:50 +0200
Message-ID: <j2ke94e14cd1005030456tb67aafd6gd3ffd164e04bd4d0@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: out of memory ...
To: Jan-Peter Seifert <Jan-Peter.Seifert@gmx.de>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2010/5/3 Jan-Peter Seifert <Jan-Peter.Seifert@gmx.de>:
> Hello,
>
> how fatal is it for the server/data if a server runs out of memory?
>
> Happened on a Windows server some time ago. A transaction got too large. =
In the log it began with:
>
> ------------
> TopMemoryContext: 37171728 total in 4046 blocks; 67640 free (4060 chunks)=
; 37104088 used
> =A0TopTransactionContext: 24576 total in 2 blocks; 18848 free (17 chunks)=
; 5728 used
> =A0 =A0CurTransactionContext: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 8176 free (1 chunks=
); 16 used
> ...
> ------------
>
> Although all other clients had been closed no new connection was possible=
 to terminate the session responsible for the out of memory problem. I gues=
s it's because this transaction had been started by a superuser ...
>
> ------------
>
> In the end the server was shut down via the service manager.
>
> On the next start of the server the log contained the following lines:
>
> ------------
> LOG: =A0database system was interrupted; last known up at 2010-03-26 11:2=
2:36 CET
> LOG: =A0database system was not properly shut down; automatic recovery in=
 progress
> LOG: =A0record with zero length at 1F/D2454CD0
> ------------
>
> The data still seemed to be okay - all the other transactions made before=
 seem to be in the database.
>
> Is it okay to continue using the database(s) or is there a risk of hidden=
 data corruption (fsync is on)?

okay to continue if your filesystem didn't have issues (if postgres
start, then it is ok from its side)

>
> Could you tell me, please?
>
> Thank you very much,
>
> Peter
>
>
> --
> GRATIS f=FCr alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
> Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
>


--=20
C=E9dric Villemain