X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD2452987 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:06:07 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 95867-10 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 15:06:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9818752984 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:06:04 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j66F628w026527; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 11:06:02 -0400 (EDT) To: Alexander Stanier Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Heavy virtual memory usage on production system In-reply-to: <42CBEF84.8080007@egsgroup.com> References: <42CAB1B6.50201@egsgroup.com> <23889.1120582516@sss.pgh.pa.us> <42CBC8A0.4070901@egsgroup.com> <25886.1120659333@sss.pgh.pa.us> <42CBEF84.8080007@egsgroup.com> Comments: In-reply-to Alexander Stanier message dated "Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:49:40 +0100" Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:06:02 -0400 Message-ID: <26526.1120662362@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200507/46 X-Sequence-Number: 13287 Alexander Stanier writes: > Looks as though there are several processes which are acquiring a load > of locks: 13 locks isn't "a load". I was worried about scenarios in which a single process might take hundreds or thousands of locks; it doesn't look like you have that. regards, tom lane