Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WuMdM-0007Nj-Fe for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:02:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WuMdL-0002Fx-VH for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:02:40 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WuMdK-0002EL-Ci for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:02:38 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WuMdF-0005xo-Ui for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:02:36 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5AE2SBN028947; Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:02:28 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Gurjeet Singh cc: Peter Eisentraut , PGSQL Hackers Subject: Re: /proc/self/oom_adj is deprecated in newer Linux kernels In-reply-to: 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> Comments: In-reply-to Gurjeet Singh message dated "Tue, 10 Jun 2014 07:56:01 -0400" Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:02:28 -0400 Message-ID: <28946.1402408948@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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 Gurjeet Singh writes: > Startup scripts are not solely in the domain of packagers. End users > can also be expected to develop/edit their own startup scripts. > 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 don't find that this argument holds any water at all. Anyone who's developing their own start script can be expected to manage recompiling Postgres. Extra GUCs do not have zero cost, especially not ones that are as complicated-to-explain as this would be. I would also argue that there's a security issue with making it a GUC. A non-root DBA should not have the authority to decide whether or not postmaster child processes run with nonzero OOM adjustment; that decision properly belongs to whoever has authorized the root-owned startup script to change the adjustment in the first place. So seeing this as two independent pieces is not only wrong but dangerous. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers