Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE4BFFD3E1E for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:37:51 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SeU6I-0005fP-Ux for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:37:51 +0000 Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5CGbcnm018435 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:37:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Tom Lane To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: /proc/self/oom_adj is deprecated in newer Linux kernels In-reply-to: <29121.1316185073@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <29121.1316185073@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane message dated "Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:57:53 -0400" Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:37:38 -0400 Message-ID: <18434.1339519058@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Archive-Number: 201206/449 X-Sequence-Number: 209289 I was reminded today that we still haven't done anything about this: Tom Lane writes: > While testing 9.1 RPMs on Fedora 15 (2.6.40 kernel), I notice > messages like these in the kernel log: > Sep 11 13:38:56 rhl kernel: [ 415.308092] postgres (18040): /proc/18040/oom_adj is deprecated, please use /proc/18040/oom_score_adj instead. At this point there are no shipping Fedora versions that don't emit this gripe, and F15 is even about to go EOL. The previous discussion thread at http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-09/msg00794.php went off into the weeds of what was in my opinion over-design. I still think it's sufficient to do what I suggested initially: > ... The simplest, least risky change that I can think of is to > copy-and-paste the relevant #ifdef code block in fork_process.c. > If we do that, then it would be up to the packager whether to #define > LINUX_OOM_ADJ or LINUX_OOM_SCORE_ADJ or both depending on the behavior > he wants. and would like to squeeze that into 9.2 so that we're only a year late and not two years late in responding to this issue :-(. Objections? regards, tom lane