| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL 8.0.6 crash |
| Date: | 2006-02-09 22:04:38 |
| Message-ID: | 5212.1139522678@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> When people talk about disabling the OOM killer, it doesn't stop the
> SIGKILL behaviour,
Yes it does, because the situation will never arise.
> it just causes the kernel to return -ENOMEM for
> malloc() much much earlier... (ie when you still actually have memory
> available).
Given the current price of disk, there is no sane reason not to have
enough swap space configured to make this not-a-problem. The OOM kill
mechanism was a reasonable solution for running systems that were not
expected to be too reliable anyway on small hardware, but if you're
trying to run a 24/7 server you're simply incompetent if you don't
disable it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-02-09 22:32:04 | Re: Server Programming in C: palloc() and pfree() |
| Previous Message | Rick Gigger | 2006-02-09 22:03:49 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.0.6 crash |