Re: PG Killed by OOM Condition

From: Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org>
To: mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc
Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, John Hansen <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PG Killed by OOM Condition
Date: 2005-10-04 06:47:57
Message-ID: 4342259D.1060102@empires.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> It's not an easy decision. Linux isn't wrong. Solaris isn't wrong.
> Most people never hit these problems, and the people that do, are
> just as likely to hit one problem, or the other. The grass is always
> greener on the side of the fence that isn't hurting me right now,
> and all that.
>
> Cheers,
> mark
>

Thanks, a very informative reply.

Do you have some references where I can learn more?

I think that I've run into the OOM killer without a fork() being
involved, but I could be wrong. Is it possible to be hit by the OOM
killer if no applications use fork()?

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dennis Bjorklund 2005-10-04 08:59:05 Re: PG Killed by OOM Condition
Previous Message Rod Taylor 2005-10-04 04:26:56 Vacuum and Transactions