From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: /proc/self/oom_adj is deprecated in newer Linux kernels
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:25:17 -0400
Message-ID: <4592.1316193917@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1316192401-sup-4726@alvh.no-ip.org>
References: <29121.1316185073@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAM-w4HMsQpi_v=0NK34t3xKtpkJiadTD04Xhrr2_OP8YO+y1Nw@mail.gmail.com>
<3624.1316191066@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<1316192401-sup-4726@alvh.no-ip.org>
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Now the problem is that we have defined the LINUX_OOM_ADJ symbol as
> meaning the value we're going to write. Maybe this wasn't the best
> choice. I mean, it's very flexible, but it doesn't seem to offer any
> benefit over a plain boolean choice.
> Is your proposal to create a new LINUX_OOM_SCORE_ADJ cpp symbol with the
> same semantics?
Yes, that's what I was thinking. We could avoid that if we were going
to hard-wire a decision that zero is the thing to write, but I see no
reason to place such a restriction on users. Who's to say they might
not want backends to adopt some other value?
regards, tom lane
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, alvherre@commandprompt.com, stark@mit.edu
Subject: Re: /proc/self/oom_adj is deprecated in newer Linux kernels
In-Reply-To: <4592.1316193917@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