| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Setting oom_adj on linux? |
| Date: | 2010-01-08 03:26:14 |
| Message-ID: | 25346.1262921174@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> FWIW here is the patch I run. Stupid as the patch may be, count it as
> a +1 for people in the field doing this. Hence a reason to think
> about doing something in core. maybe.
Thanks for the patch --- it's certainly a fine starting point.
We can either drop this in core (with a lot of #ifdef LINUX added)
or expect Linux packagers to carry it as a patch. Given that the
packagers would also have to modify their init scripts to go with,
the patch route is not unreasonable. Comments?
> This has some oddities like it does not reset oom to 0 for the (wal)
> writer process.
FWIW, I think that's probably a feature --- I'd vote for only resetting
in regular backends and possibly autovac workers.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-01-08 03:38:30 | Re: damage control mode |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-08 03:20:37 | Re: damage control mode |