Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> FWIW here is the patch I run. Stupid as the patch may be, count it as
> a +1 for people in the field doing this. Hence a reason to think
> about doing something in core. maybe.
Thanks for the patch --- it's certainly a fine starting point.
We can either drop this in core (with a lot of #ifdef LINUX added)
or expect Linux packagers to carry it as a patch. Given that the
packagers would also have to modify their init scripts to go with,
the patch route is not unreasonable. Comments?
> This has some oddities like it does not reset oom to 0 for the (wal)
> writer process.
FWIW, I think that's probably a feature --- I'd vote for only resetting
in regular backends and possibly autovac workers.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-01-08 03:38:30|
|Subject: Re: damage control mode|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-01-08 03:20:37|
|Subject: Re: damage control mode |