Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TE0L6-0002WW-0n for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:07:56 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TE0Kz-0001w0-26 for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:07:55 +0000 Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8IG7kio020114; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:07:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Tom Lane To: data tanger cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Issue with SHMALL parameter In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to data tanger message dated "Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:59:53 +0200" Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:07:46 -0400 Message-ID: <20113.1347984466@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-Archive-Number: 201209/17 X-Sequence-Number: 7469 data tanger writes: > Here are the shmall and the shmax params of my server: > #cat /proc/sys/kernel/shmmax 68719476736 > #cat /proc/sys/kernel/shmall 4294967296 SHMALL is measured in pages not bytes on Linux. I wonder if that value is too large and is causing an internal integer overflow in the kernel. regards, tom lane