| From: | Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Can't find thread on Linux memory overcommit |
| Date: | 2003-08-21 07:39:25 |
| Message-ID: | 200308211309.25163.shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 23:57, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-07/msg00608.php
>
> Subject is "reprise on Linux overcommit handling" - is that too
> deceptive? :-)
I did little searching on this and found..
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0306.3/1647.html
Can anybody comment on how much diference 2.6 would make to this situation of
OOM kiiler "feature"?
If there could be any cross-OS comparisons, that would be great as well. A
summary would really help.
Shridhar
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-08-21 13:19:24 | Re: Can't find thread on Linux memory overcommit |
| Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2003-08-21 02:38:43 | Re: Time input documentation error |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-08-21 09:10:52 | Re: Buglist |
| Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2003-08-21 07:38:41 | Re: "SELECT IN" Still Broken in 7.4b |