Hi Thomas,
doubling the max_connection has the problem gone away for now! Yay!
As for the crash. I dug up the initial log and it looks like a segmentation fault...
2017-11-23 07:26:53 CET:192.168.10.83(35238):user@db:[30003]: ERROR: too many dynamic shared memory segments
2017-11-23 07:26:53 CET:192.168.10.83(35238):user@db:[30003]: STATEMENT: SELECT ....
2017-11-23 07:26:55 CET::@:[29398]: LOG: server process (PID 26992) was terminated by signal 11: Segmentation fault
2017-11-23 07:26:55 CET::@:[29398]: DETAIL: Failed process was running: SELECT .....
2017-11-23 07:26:55 CET::@:[29398]: LOG: terminating any other active server processes
2017-11-23 07:26:55 CET:192.168.10.83(35242):user@db:[30009]: WARNING: terminating connection because of crash of another server process
2017-11-23 07:26:55 CET:192.168.10.83(35242):user@db:[30009]: DETAIL: The postmaster has commanded this server process to roll back the current transaction and exit, because another server process exited abnormally and possibly corrupted shared memory.
2017-11-23 07:26:55 CET:192.168.10.83(35242):user@db:[30009]: HINT: In a moment you should be able to reconnect to the database and repeat your command.
2017-11-23 07:26:55 CET:192.168.10.83(35268):user@db:[30097]: WARNING: terminating connection because of crash of another server process
2017-11-23 07:26:55 CET:192.168.10.83(35268):user@db:[30097]: DETAIL: The postmaster has commanded this server process to roll back the current transaction and exit, because another server process exited abnormally and possibly corrupted shared memory.
2017-11-23 07:26:55 CET:192.168.10.83(35268):user@db:[30097]: HINT: In a moment you should be able to reconnect to the database and repeat your command.
2017-11-23 07:26:55 CET:192.168.10.83(46614):user@db:[31080]: WARNING: terminating connection because of crash of another server process
2017-11-23 07:26:55 CET:192.168.10.83(46614):user@db:[31080]: DETAIL: The postmaster has commanded this server process to roll back the current transaction and exit, because another server process exited abnormally and possibly corrupted shared memory.
2017-11-23 07:26:55 CET:192.168.10.83(46614):user@db: HINT: In a moment you should be able to reconnect to the database and repeat your command.
2017-11-23 07:26:55 CET:192.168.10.83(35238):user@db:[30003]: WARNING: terminating connection because of crash of another server process
2017-11-23 07:26:55 CET:192.168.10.83(35238):user@db:[30003]: DETAIL: The postmaster has commanded this server process to roll back the current transaction and exit, because another server process exited abnormally and possibly corrupted shared memory
2017-11-23 07:26:55 CET:192.168.10.83(35300):user@db:[30152]: FATAL: the database system is in recovery mode
--
regards,
pozdrawiam,
Jakub Glapa
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ah, so you have many Gather nodes under Append? That's one way to eatOn Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Jakub Glapa <jakub.glapa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The queries are somehow special.
> We are still using the old style partitioning (list type) but we abuse it a
> bit when querying.
> When querying a set of partitions instead of doing it via parent table we
> stitch together the required tables with UNION ALL (this requires less
> locking) and was more performant in our benchmark (the new native
> partitioning might improve this but we didn't research that yet).
>
> The queries are in form of
> SELECT col1,col2,col3 FROM
> (SELECT *
> FROM par1
> WHERE rangestart >= '2017-01-01 00:00:00.0' AND rangeend <=
> '2017-11-26 23:59:59.999'
> UNION ALL SELECT *
> FROM par2
> WHERE rangestart >= '2017-01-01 00:00:00.0' AND rangeend <=
> '2017-11-26 23:59:59.999'
> UNION ALL SELECT *
> FROM par2
> WHERE rangestart >= '2017-01-01 00:00:00.0' AND rangeend <=
> '2017-11-26 23:59:59.999'
>
> WHERE rangestart >= '2017-01-01 00:00:00.0' AND rangeend <=
> '2017-11-26 23:59:59.999'
>
> UNION ALL
> ...
> ) unionalias
> WHERE ....
>
>
>
> and indeed the query planner shows the usage of Bitmap Heap Scan
> ....
> -> Subquery Scan on "*SELECT* 2"
> (cost=3068.58..19793.94 rows=1 width=1284)
> -> Gather (cost=3068.58..19793.93
> rows=1 width=5014)
> Workers Planned: 2
> -> Parallel Bitmap Heap Scan
> on par_6 (cost=2068.58..18793.83 rows=1 width=5014)
> Recheck Cond:
> <<CONDITION>>
> Filter: <<CONDITION>>
> -> BitmapAnd
> (cost=2068.58..2068.58 rows=30955 width=0)
> -> BitmapOr
> (cost=999.30..999.30 rows=42989 width=0)
> -> Bitmap
> Index Scan on par_6_datasource (cost=0.00..990.21 rows=42922 width=0)
> Index
> Cond: ((datasource)::text = 'one'::text)
> -> Bitmap
> Index Scan on par_6_datasource (cost=0.00..4.30 rows=1 width=0)
> Index
> Cond: ((datasource)::text = 'two'::text)
> -> Bitmap
> Index Scan on par_6_datasource (cost=0.00..4.79 rows=67 width=0)
> Index
> Cond: ((datasource)::text = 'three'::text)
> -> Bitmap Index
> Scan on par_6_rangestart (cost=0.00..1069.02 rows=47564 width=0)
> Index Cond:
> (rangestart >= '2017-01-01 00:00:00+01'::timestamp with time zone)
> -> Subquery Scan on "*SELECT* 3"
> (cost=761.33..7944.99 rows=1 width=1086)
> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on par_7
> (cost=761.33..7944.98 rows=1 width=4816)
> Recheck Cond:
> <<CONDITION>>
> Filter: <<CONDITION>>
> -> BitmapAnd
> (cost=761.33..761.33 rows=7045 width=0)
> -> Bitmap Index Scan on
> par_7_rangestart (cost=0.00..380.35 rows=14942 width=0)
> Index Cond:
> (rangestart >= '2017-01-01 00:00:00+01'::timestamp with time zone)
> -> BitmapOr
> (cost=380.72..380.72 rows=12248 width=0)
> -> Bitmap Index
> Scan on par_7_datasource (cost=0.00..372.00 rows=12228 width=0)
> Index Cond:
> ((datasource)::text = 'one'::text)
> -> Bitmap Index
> Scan on par_7_datasource (cost=0.00..4.36 rows=10 width=0)
> Index Cond:
> ((datasource)::text = 'two'::text)
> -> Bitmap Index
> Scan on par_7_datasource (cost=0.00..4.36 rows=10 width=0)
> Index Cond:
> ((datasource)::text = 'three'::text)
>
> ....
>
>
> In this particular query there were over _100_ partitions connected with the
> UNION ALL operator.
arbitrarily many DSM slots. We allow for 64 + 2 * max_backends. Does
it help if you increase max_connections? I am concerned about the
crash failure mode you mentioned in the first email though: we should
always be able to handle that condition gracefully.
