From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | david(at)lang(dot)hm |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: select on 22 GB table causes "An I/O error occured while sending to the backend." exception |
Date: | 2008-08-28 18:07:18 |
Message-ID: | 1219946838.22237.26.camel@jdavis |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 23:23 -0700, david(at)lang(dot)hm wrote:
> there are periodic flamefests on the kernel mailing list over the OOM
> killer, if you can propose a better algorithm for it to use than the
> current one that doesn't end up being just as bad for some other workload
> the kernel policy can be changed.
>
Tried that: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/9/275
All they have to do is *not* count shared memory against the process (or
at least not count it against the parent of the process), and the system
may approximate sanity.
> IIRC the reason why it targets the parent process is to deal with a
> fork-bomb type of failure where a program doesn't use much memory itself,
> but forks off memory hogs as quickly as it can. if the OOM killer only
> kills the children the problem never gets solved.
But killing a process won't free shared memory. And there is already a
system-wide limit on shared memory. So what's the point of such a bad
design?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig James | 2008-08-28 18:12:14 | Re: select on 22 GB table causes "An I/O error occured while sending to the backend." exception |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2008-08-28 17:51:16 | Re: select on 22 GB table causes "An I/O error occured while sending to the backend." exception |