From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL 8.0.6 crash |
Date: | 2006-02-09 16:17:48 |
Message-ID: | 43EB6B2C.9070506@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>"Mark Woodward" <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> writes:
>
>
>>Still, I would say that is is extremly bad behavior for not having
>>stats, wouldn't you think?
>>
>>
>
>Think of it as a kernel bug.
>
>
>
>>>Meanwhile, I'd strongly recommend turning off OOM kill. That's got to
>>>be the single worst design decision in the entire Linux kernel.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>How is this any different than the FreeBSD having a default 512M process
>>size limit? On FreeBSD, the process would have been killed earlier.
>>
>>
>
>No, the process would have been politely told it was out of memory, and
>would have told you the same. If the kernel's way of notifying a
>process that it's out of memory is SIGKILL, there is not a damn thing
>that we can do to operate robustly.
>
>
And we have docco on it:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/kernel-resources.html#AEN18105
which I assume is still current. Back in October I mentioned the OOM
killer to Andrew Morton - his reaction was a very pained look and a curt
admonition: "turn it off".
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Woodward | 2006-02-09 16:42:57 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.0.6 crash |
Previous Message | Mark Woodward | 2006-02-09 16:14:28 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.0.6 crash |