| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: configurability of OOM killer |
| Date: | 2008-02-04 20:41:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20080204204129.GI16380@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Frankly, I'm entirely unpersuaded. It will do zilch to improve the OOM
> problem, and I cannot see any way of restricting global memory
> consumption that won't hurt performance and flexibility.
Yeah, the only way to improve the OOM problem would be to harass the
Linux developers to tweak badness() so that it considers the postmaster
to be an essential process rather than the one to preferentially kill.
As you said, perhaps the way to improve the current situation is to get
packagers to tweak /proc/xyz/oom_adj on the initscript.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-02-04 20:44:35 | Re: Page-at-a-time Locking Considerations |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-02-04 20:31:15 | Re: configurability of OOM killer |