Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1t5or1-008l2Y-LB for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 29 Oct 2024 16:13:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1t5oqz-0005J9-NO for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 29 Oct 2024 16:13:58 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1t5oqz-0005J0-F0 for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 29 Oct 2024 16:13:57 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1t5oqx-003TU8-6V for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 29 Oct 2024 16:13:56 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 49TGDqVV241666; Tue, 29 Oct 2024 12:13:52 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Maciej Jaros cc: Tomas Vondra , "David G. Johnston" , "pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org" Subject: Re: BUG #18675: Postgres is not realasing memory causing OOM In-reply-to: References: <18675-39a45505fb472bf0@postgresql.org> <60f459d7-9cfc-4417-8944-a44581edbe4d@gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to Maciej Jaros message dated "Tue, 29 Oct 2024 13:26:09 +0100" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-ID: <241664.1730218432.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 12:13:52 -0400 Message-ID: <241665.1730218432@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Maciej Jaros writes: > So, that comment led me to suggest adding some kind of process. I called it > a garbage collector, but maybe David is right; maybe that’s not accurate. > Anyway, that process, in my view, could try to actually release memory to > the system to prevent the OOM killer from doing its bidding. Is that > possible? We do not even know what is causing your problem, let alone know a way that one process could command another one to stop doing it. So no, this suggestion is not helpful. regards, tom lane