| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: /proc/self/oom_adj is deprecated in newer Linux kernels |
| Date: | 2014-06-10 14:51:16 |
| Message-ID: | 30117.1402411876@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I don't find that this argument holds any water at all. Anyone who's
>> developing their own start script can be expected to manage recompiling
>> Postgres.
> Huh? Lots of people install PostgreSQL via, say, RPMs, but may still
> want to change their startup script locally.
So? The RPM packager could probably be expected to have compiled with the
oom-adjust-reset option enabled. If not, why aren't these people lobbying
the packager to meet their expectation?
I remain of the opinion that allowing nonprivileged people to decide
whether that code is active or not is unsafe from a system level.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-06-10 14:54:14 | Re: NUMA packaging and patch |
| Previous Message | Rahila Syed | 2014-06-10 14:49:46 | Re: Compression of full-page-writes |