| 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>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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 15:56:14 |
| Message-ID: | 31429.1402415774@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 11:29 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> If you think your users might want to give the postmaster OOM-exemption,
>> why don't you just activate the existing code when you build? Resetting
>> the OOM setting to zero is safe whether or not the startup script did
>> anything to the postmaster's setting.
> The whole scenario here is that the user *doesn't want to recompile*.
Yeah, I understood that. The question is why EDB isn't satisfied to just
add "-DLINUX_OOM_ADJ=0" to their build options, but instead would like to
dump a bunch of uncertainty on other packagers who might not like the
implications of a GUC.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-06-10 15:57:36 | Re: /proc/self/oom_adj is deprecated in newer Linux kernels |
| Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2014-06-10 15:55:28 | Re: /proc/self/oom_adj is deprecated in newer Linux kernels |