Re: Setting oom_adj on linux?

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Setting oom_adj on linux?
Date: 2010-01-04 18:32:36
Message-ID: 4B41DFE4020000250002DCB2@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> This suggests that PG's shared memory ought not be counted in the
> postmaster's OOM score, which would mean that the problem
> shouldn't be quite as bad as we've believed. I wonder if that is
> a recent change? Or maybe it's supposed to be that way and is not
> implemented correctly?

I've wondered about that based on my experience. When I found that
memory leak back in 8.2devel, running on a SLES 9 SP 3 system, the
OOM killer killed the offending backend rather than the postmaster,
although it took out a couple Java middle tier processes before
starting in on PostgreSQL.

-Kevin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2010-01-04 18:36:12 Re: Thoughts on statistics for continuously advancing columns
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2010-01-04 18:28:52 Re: pg_migrator issues