> >
> > Wouldn't it be pretty easy to run postgres through a process that has a
> > setrlimit on the memory? I assume that postgres handles memory errors
> > gracefully. I think the shared memory limit combined with setrlimit would
> > give him what he needs.
>
> Yes, you could do that. Of course, a backend that exceeds it is going
> to die, but it seems that's what he wants.
Can postgres handle out-of-memory errors gracefully? I don't even know if it
would really make sense, but I suppose it could just give an error and
ROLLBACK the current transaction. If it had a minimal amount of memory (just
enough to perform basic tasks) to work with it seems that it could handle it
a little bit gracefully. Although this might be tough to do in a
cross-platform way.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
