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
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 |