Hello,

how fatal is it for the server/data if a server runs out of memory?

Happened on a Windows server some time ago. A transaction got too large. =
In the log it began with:

------------
TopMemoryContext: 37171728 total in 4046 blocks; 67640 free (4060 chunks)=
; 37104088 used
TopTransactionContext: 24576 total in 2 blocks; 18848 free (17 chunks);=
5728 used
CurTransactionContext: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 8176 free (1 chunks); =
16 used
....
------------

Although all other clients had been closed no new connection was possible=
to terminate the session responsible for the out of memory problem. I gu=
ess it's because this transaction had been started by a superuser ...

------------

In the end the server was shut down via the service manager.

On the next start of the server the log contained the following lines:

------------
LOG: database system was interrupted; last known up at 2010-03-26 11:22:=
36 CET
LOG: database system was not properly shut down; automatic recovery in p=
rogress
LOG: record with zero length at 1F/D2454CD0
------------

The data still seemed to be okay - all the other transactions made before=
seem to be in the database.

Is it okay to continue using the database(s) or is there a risk of hidden=
data corruption (fsync is on)?

Could you tell me, please?

Thank you very much,

Peter


--
GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01

--
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin [at] postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin

2010/5/3 Jan-Peter Seifert <Jan-Peter.Seifert [at] gmx.de>:
> Hello,
>
> how fatal is it for the server/data if a server runs out of memory?
>
> Happened on a Windows server some time ago. A transaction got too large. =
In the log it began with:
>
> ------------
> TopMemoryContext: 37171728 total in 4046 blocks; 67640 free (4060 chunks)=
; 37104088 used
> =A0TopTransactionContext: 24576 total in 2 blocks; 18848 free (17 chunks)=
; 5728 used
> =A0 =A0CurTransactionContext: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 8176 free (1 chunks=
); 16 used
> ...
> ------------
>
> Although all other clients had been closed no new connection was possible=
to terminate the session responsible for the out of memory problem. I gues=
s it's because this transaction had been started by a superuser ...
>
> ------------
>
> In the end the server was shut down via the service manager.
>
> On the next start of the server the log contained the following lines:
>
> ------------
> LOG: =A0database system was interrupted; last known up at 2010-03-26 11:2=
2:36 CET
> LOG: =A0database system was not properly shut down; automatic recovery in=
progress
> LOG: =A0record with zero length at 1F/D2454CD0
> ------------
>
> The data still seemed to be okay - all the other transactions made before=
seem to be in the database.
>
> Is it okay to continue using the database(s) or is there a risk of hidden=
data corruption (fsync is on)?

okay to continue if your filesystem didn't have issues (if postgres
start, then it is ok from its side)

>
> Could you tell me, please?
>
> Thank you very much,
>
> Peter
>
>
> --
> GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
> Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin [at] postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
>



--
C=E9dric Villemain

--
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin [at] postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin

Hello,

>> ------------
>> LOG: database system was interrupted; last known up at 2010-03-26 11:22:36 CET
>> LOG: database system was not properly shut down; automatic recovery in progress
>> LOG: record with zero length at 1F/D2454CD0
>> ------------
>>
>> The data still seemed to be okay - all the other transactions made before seem to be in the database.
>>
>> Is it okay to continue using the database(s) or is there a risk of hidden data corruption (fsync is on)?
>
> okay to continue if your filesystem didn't have issues (if postgres
> start, then it is ok from its side)

Sounds good.

Thank you very much for your reply.

Peter

--
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin [at] postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin