=?UTF-8?B?QWxleGlzIEzDqi1RdcO0Yw==?= <alq@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> However, I find it a bit odd that you're getting this failure in what >> appears to be a 64-bit build. That means you're not running out of >> address space, so you must actually be out of RAM+swap. Does the >> machine have only 4GB or so of RAM? If so, that value for >> shared_buffers is unrealistically large; it's not leaving enough RAM for >> other purposes such as this. > The box has little under 8GB (it's on EC2, a "m1.large" instance) > There is no swap. Hmph. Is there other stuff being run on the same instance? Are there a whole lot of active PG processes? Maybe Amazon isn't really giving you a whole 8GB, or there are weird address space restrictions in the EC2 environment. Anyway I think I'd suggest reducing shared_buffers to 1GB or so. >> Where did you get the above-quoted parameter settings, anyway? > In turn they come from High-Performance Postgresql 9.0 > (http://www.postgresql.org/about/news.1249) I'm sure even Greg wouldn't claim his methods are good to more than one or two significant digits. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
