| From: | Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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 15:55:28 |
| Message-ID: | CABwTF4W6LgapxrUgpD5C27QCpfysO2dObro9iz6_nKATecMt4g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2014-06-10 11:14:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Sure, but what's that have to do with this? Any Red Hat or PGDG RPM will
>> come with this code already enabled in the build, so there is no need for
>> anyone to have a GUC to play around with the behavior.
>
> That's imo a fair point. Unless I misunderstand things Gurjeet picked
> the topic up again because he wants to increase the priority of the
> children. Is that correct Gurjeet?
Yes. A DBA would like to prevent the postmaster from being killed by
OOM killer, but let the child processes be still subject to OOM
killer's whim.
Best regards,
--
Gurjeet Singh http://gurjeet.singh.im/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-10 15:56:14 | Re: /proc/self/oom_adj is deprecated in newer Linux kernels |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-10 15:52:17 | Re: /proc/self/oom_adj is deprecated in newer Linux kernels |