Re: configurability of OOM killer - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: configurability of OOM killer
Date
Msg-id 20080204204129.GI16380@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: configurability of OOM killer  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: configurability of OOM killer  (Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:

> Frankly, I'm entirely unpersuaded.  It will do zilch to improve the OOM
> problem, and I cannot see any way of restricting global memory
> consumption that won't hurt performance and flexibility.

Yeah, the only way to improve the OOM problem would be to harass the
Linux developers to tweak badness() so that it considers the postmaster
to be an essential process rather than the one to preferentially kill.

As you said, perhaps the way to improve the current situation is to get
packagers to tweak /proc/xyz/oom_adj on the initscript.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: configurability of OOM killer
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Page-at-a-time Locking Considerations