From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Built-in support for a memory consumption ulimit? |
Date: | 2014-06-16 20:08:34 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYvtxt6toA4EzjxVFkBzXk0cKzuU_2tiCNQntPtf_2iCA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> After giving somebody advice, for the Nth time, to install a
> memory-consumption ulimit instead of leaving his database to the tender
> mercies of the Linux OOM killer, it occurred to me to wonder why we don't
> provide a built-in feature for that, comparable to the "ulimit -c max"
> option that already exists in pg_ctl. A reasonably low-overhead way
> to do that would be to define it as something a backend process sets
> once at startup, if told to by a GUC. The GUC could possibly be
> PGC_BACKEND level though I'm not sure if we want unprivileged users
> messing with it.
>
> Thoughts?
What happens if the limit is exceeded? ERROR? FATAL? PANIC?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-06-16 20:14:49 | Re: Audit of logout |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-06-16 20:05:57 | Re: wrapping in extended mode doesn't work well with default pager |