| From: | Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: redo error? |
| Date: | 2003-01-08 13:07:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1042031265.29859.7.camel@mouse.copelandconsulting.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 22:58, Tom Lane wrote:
> > It also logged that it was killed with signal 9, although I didn't kill it!
> > Is there something weird going on here?
>
> Is this Linux? The Linux kernel seems to think that killing
> randomly-chosen processes with SIGKILL is an appropriate response to
> running out of memory. I cannot offhand think of a more brain-dead
> behavior in any OS living or dead, but that's what it does.
Just FYI, I believe the 2.6.x series of kernels will rectify this
situation.
--
Greg Copeland <greg(at)copelandconsulting(dot)net>
Copeland Computer Consulting
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | D'Arcy J.M. Cain | 2003-01-08 13:57:42 | Re: python interface |
| Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2003-01-08 12:17:38 | Re: psql and readline |