Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.187])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD882E3440;
	Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:43:08 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 90542-02; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:43:01 -0400 (AST)
Received: from main2.mycybernet.net (main2.mycybernet.net [209.222.63.140])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D143F2E36BE;
	Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:43:01 -0400 (AST)
Received: from 227-54-222-209.mycybernet.net ([209.222.54.227]
	helo=crankycanuck.ca) by main2.mycybernet.net with esmtp (Exim 4.62)
	(envelope-from <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>)
	id 1J2Ufl-0004vj-BU; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:43:01 -0500
Received: by crankycanuck.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 67DF150476; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:42:56 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:42:56 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Dangerous hint in the PostgreSQL manual
Message-ID: <20071212164256.GV31954@crankycanuck.ca>
Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>,
	pgsql-admin@postgresql.org, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
References: <20071210162612.a9y113hzjkookooc@webmail.kwsoft.de>
	<20071210204750.GA22340@crankycanuck.ca>
	<20071211092338.3vsx57ymsswsckw0@webmail.kwsoft.de>
	<20071211134231.GL26741@crankycanuck.ca>
	<20071211150836.00ql03638kok48s0@webmail.kwsoft.de>
	<20071211162229.GD27409@crankycanuck.ca>
	<20071212171924.uir6apjasoog00c4@webmail.kwsoft.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20071212171924.uir6apjasoog00c4@webmail.kwsoft.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200712/68
X-Sequence-Number: 27585

Dear docs mavens:

Please see below for a possible adjustment to the docs.  Is it agreeable? 
If so, I'll see about putting together a patch.

On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 05:19:24PM +0100, Listaccount wrote:
> >What I _would_ support in the docs is the following addition in 17.4.3,
> >where this is discussed:
> >
> >    . . .it will lower the chances significantly and will therefore
> >    lead to more robust system behavior.  It may also cause fork() to fail
> >    when the machine appears to have available memory.  This is done by
> >    selecting. . .
> >
> >Or something like that.  This would warn potential users that they really 
> >do
> >need to read their kernel docs.
> 
> On this one we can agree. Maybe we should mention the root-cause.
> 
> "It may also cause fork() to fail when the machine appears to have  
> available memory because of other applications doing careless memory  
> allocation"
> 
> Would be nice to save others from learning about this the hard way.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Andreas