Jeff Davis wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
Out of memory throws FATAL, which just exits the backend.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
