X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E01DD1B56C for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 04:37:51 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [64.117.224.130]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06942-01 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 04:37:41 -0300 (ADT) Received: from smtp.pspl.co.in (unknown [202.54.11.65]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CB1DD1BAAE for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 04:37:38 -0300 (ADT) Received: (from root@localhost) by smtp.pspl.co.in (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h7L7e6IN010163 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:10:06 +0530 Received: from daithan.intranet.pspl.co.in (daithan.intranet.pspl.co.in [192.168.7.161]) (authenticated bits=0) by persistent.co.in (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7L7e3Cj010137 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:10:04 +0530 From: Shridhar Daithankar To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Can't find thread on Linux memory overcommit Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:09:25 +0530 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2 References: <200308201102.37559.josh@agliodbs.com> <3F43BD9F.3050205@dunslane.net> In-Reply-To: <3F43BD9F.3050205@dunslane.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200308211309.25163.shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200308/940 X-Sequence-Number: 42597 On Wednesday 20 August 2003 23:57, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-07/msg00608.php > > Subject is "reprise on Linux overcommit handling" - is that too > deceptive? :-) I did little searching on this and found.. http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0306.3/1647.html Can anybody comment on how much diference 2.6 would make to this situation of OOM kiiler "feature"? If there could be any cross-OS comparisons, that would be great as well. A summary would really help. Shridhar