Received: from magus.postgresql.org (magus.postgresql.org [87.238.57.229]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED2C227498 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:49:18 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail-yw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.213.46]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Rd9Qq-0003u2-E2 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:49:18 +0000 Received: by yhr47 with SMTP id 47so5039534yhr.19 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:49:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.236.124.39 with SMTP id w27mr6825386yhh.125.1324424941722; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:49:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.1.6] ([124.150.53.33]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 3sm9513131anv.7.2011.12.20.15.48.58 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:49:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4EF11EE6.6020203@ringerc.id.au> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 07:48:54 +0800 From: Craig Ringer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rafael Martinez CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Dramatic change in memory usage with version 9.1 References: <4EEF5296.2030101@usit.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <4EEF5296.2030101@usit.uio.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-) X-Archive-Number: 201112/140 X-Sequence-Number: 45939 On 19/12/2011 11:04 PM, Rafael Martinez wrote: > Any ideas about why this dramatic change in memory usage when the only > thing apparently changed from our side is the postgres version? > It'd be interesting to know how much of your workload operates with SERIALIZABLE transactions, as the behavior of those has changed significantly in 9.1 and they _are_ more expensive in RAM terms now. -- Craig Ringer