From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im>, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>,
 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>,
 PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: /proc/self/oom_adj is deprecated in newer Linux kernels
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+TgmoaBTgtTi4SUVuZw=Z5kj59AQCCp-hJw5sLcbokDSRaF-A@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>
 <20140610143202.GI8406@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CABwTF4U+kYVvshm8gdw-72WCaXQ9JHURBBd53zMK6L=QhNG9GA@mail.gmail.com>
 <30893.1402414198@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoaBTgtTi4SUVuZw=Z5kj59AQCCp-hJw5sLcbokDSRaF-A@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
 message dated "Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:39:13 -0400"
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:56:14 -0400
Message-ID: <31429.1402415774@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> If you think your users might want to give the postmaster OOM-exemption,
>> why don't you just activate the existing code when you build?  Resetting
>> the OOM setting to zero is safe whether or not the startup script did
>> anything to the postmaster's setting.

> The whole scenario here is that the user *doesn't want to recompile*.

Yeah, I understood that.  The question is why EDB isn't satisfied to just
add "-DLINUX_OOM_ADJ=0" to their build options, but instead would like to
dump a bunch of uncertainty on other packagers who might not like the
implications of a GUC.

			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