From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: /proc/self/oom_adj is deprecated in newer Linux kernels
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:46:22 -0400
Message-ID: <31221.1402415182@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoatSjstqnA2iDiTA3F361nYm6tqCeq1w-29bk6Lqkgfag@mail.gmail.com>
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>
<CABwTF4XDdYiBQXqj=CKrFXN7x2NiBbVnpHSJG6AVnMBLnLBmLA@mail.gmail.com>
<28946.1402408948@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CA+Tgmoaps4ih-VEKvUgftqJ66_oSo-h9PpHi2_-wAzhVTYnzYw@mail.gmail.com>
<30117.1402411876@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CA+TgmoZ2tDAVB5cLPt=UKHaogw+cfq6ZEis1yCTD_gsBWud9SA@mail.gmail.com>
<30601.1402413283@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CA+TgmoatSjstqnA2iDiTA3F361nYm6tqCeq1w-29bk6Lqkgfag@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Well, clearly, somebody hasn't got it right, or there wouldn't be this
> complaint. I'll grant you that "somebody" may be EnterpriseDB's own
> packaging in this instance, but I wouldn't like to bet that no one
> else has ever got this wrong nor ever will. Peter asked upthread why
> this wasn't a GUC with the comment that "Why is this feature not a
> run-time configuration variable or at least a configure option? It's
> awfully well hidden now. I doubt a lot of people are using this even
> though they might wish to." I think that's quite right, and note that
> Peter is in no way affiliated with EnterpriseDB and made that comment
> (rather presciently) long before Gurjeet's recent report.
I'd be okay with a configure option, if you think that would make this
issue more visible to packagers. It's delegating the responsibility to
the DBA level that I'm unhappy about.
>> Because it would convert the intended behavior (postmaster and only
>> postmaster is exempt from OOM kill) into a situation where possibly
>> all of the database processes are exempt from OOM kill, at the whim
>> of somebody who should not have the privilege to decide that.
> Gurjeet already refused that argument.
He can refuse it all he likes, but that doesn't make his opinion correct.
> How about using an environment variable? It seems to me that would
> address the concern about DBAs without shell access. They might be
> able to frob GUCs, but presumably not the postmaster's starting
> environment.
Hmmm ... yeah, that might work. It would solve the problem I'm worried
about, which is making sure that the startup script has control of what
happens.
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
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, gurjeet@singh.im, peter_e@gmx.net
Subject: Re: /proc/self/oom_adj is deprecated in newer Linux kernels
In-Reply-To: <31221.1402415182@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox