Re: [PATCH] Use new oom_score_adj without a new compile-time constant

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dan McGee <dan(at)archlinux(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use new oom_score_adj without a new compile-time constant
Date: 2011-10-24 17:29:43
Message-ID: CA+TgmobmhdNqUjZh7CrNLTAok-A6vemMxZJZg_c_wuoM0SxGxA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> [ oom_score_adj business ]
>
>> Did we do anything about this?  Anyone else have an opinion on what
>> ought to be done?
>
> I held off doing anything because it didn't seem like we had consensus.
> OTOH, it may well be that it's not important enough to demand real
> consensus, and he who does the work gets to make the choices.

Half a loaf is better than none.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2011-10-24 17:38:34 Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2011-10-24 17:23:40 Re: termination of backend waiting for sync rep generates a junk log message