Bruce Momjian wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>I believe that the swap slot can be subsequently freed, though. In
>>theory your available virtual memory should be (almost) RAM+swap. In
>>practice, Linux can run too close to that limit, (or way over it if you
>>turn the checks off). But restricting the maximum possible pages to
>>RAM/2 + swap should normally be fine. IANAKH, though.
>>Also note that the truly bad thing about the OOM killer is that it can
>>affect a process that is not making any new memory demands at all.
>How does the OOM killer kill processes, kill -9 or kill -1 and wait?
It sends a SIGKILL (9) unless the process is doing raw io, in which case
it sends SIGTERM (15). It can't really wait - at this stage the kernel
is in trouble - it can either kill processes or panic. The whole idea of
strict accounting is not to let it get to this stage in the first place.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2003-09-01 02:39:22|
|Subject: Re: Preliminary notes about hash index concurrency (long)|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2003-09-01 01:51:02|
|Subject: Re: pg_dump bug?|