Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WuN60-0008On-4X for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:32:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WuN5z-0000K6-Kq for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:32:15 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WuN5y-0000Ib-8I for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:32:14 +0000 Received: from mail.anarazel.de ([217.115.131.40]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WuN5n-0003as-OW for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:32:13 +0000 Received: from intern.anarazel.de (p5DDC5B67.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.220.91.103]) (Authenticated sender: andres@anarazel.de) by mail.anarazel.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B15174E8006; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:32:02 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:32:02 +0200 From: Andres Freund To: Gurjeet Singh Cc: Tom Lane , Peter Eisentraut , PGSQL Hackers Subject: Re: /proc/self/oom_adj is deprecated in newer Linux kernels Message-ID: <20140610143202.GI8406@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <29121.1316185073@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1316355543.12186.9.camel@vanquo.pezone.net> <15953.1316362868@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1316420754.14001.3.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com> <16241.1316441883@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org On 2014-06-10 07:56:01 -0400, Gurjeet Singh wrote: > Providing it as GUC would have given end users both the peices, but > with a compile-time option they have only one half of the solution; > except if they go compile their own binaries, which forces them into > being packagers. > > I am not alone in feeling that if Postgres wishes to provide a control > over child backend's oom_score_adj, it should be a GUC parameter > rather than a compile-time option. Yesterday a customer wanted to > leverage this and couldn't because they refuse to maintain their own > fork of Postgres code. Independent of the rest of the discussion, I think there's one more point: Trying to keep your system stable by *increasing* the priority of normal backends is a bad idea. If you system gets into OOM land you need to fix that, not whack who gets killed around. The reason it makes sense to increase the priority of the postmaster is that that *does* increase the stability by cleaning up resources and restarting everything. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers