Re: PostgreSQL 8.0.6 crash

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 8.0.6 crash
Date: 2006-02-09 20:13:22
Message-ID: 878xsk70kd.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:

> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> > Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> > > It doesn't seem like a bad idea to have a max_memory parameter that if a
> > > backend ever exceeded it would immediately abort the current
> > > transaction.
> >
> > See ulimit (or local equivalent).
>
> As much as setting ulimit in shell scripts is fun, I have to admit that
> I really don't see it happening very much.

For one thing it requires admin access to the startup scripts to arrange this.
And it's always cluster-wide.

Having a GUC parameter would mean it could be set per-session. Even if the GUC
parameter were just implemented by calling setrlimit it might be useful.

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2006-02-09 20:16:10 Re: [GENERAL] Sequences/defaults and pg_dump
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-02-09 20:12:02 Re: [GENERAL] Sequences/defaults and pg_dump