To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
cc: Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: /proc/self/oom_adj is deprecated in newer Linux kernels 
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
	message dated "Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:17:35 -0300"
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:25:17 -0400
Message-ID: <4592.1316193917@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

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