Re: Tom Lane 2014-07-01 <20654.1404247905@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Yeah, I'm unexcited about this proposal. In any case, given the two
> existing APIs we have to deal with, allowing PG_OOM_ADJUST_VALUE to
> default to "0" is sane in both APIs but a default for the file name
> can work for only one.
Nod.
> Fair enough. I went for a minimum-change approach when hacking that
> script, but we could change it some more in the name of readability.
> Will do something about that.
Thanks, it's much nicer now. There's one uglyness left though: The
name PG_CHILD_OOM_SCORE_ADJ should match what actually gets passed to
the backends,
DAEMON_ENV="PG_OOM_ADJUST_FILE=$PG_OOM_ADJUST_FILE PG_OOM_ADJUST_VALUE=$PG_CHILD_OOM_SCORE_ADJ"
would better be PG_OOM_ADJUST_VALUE=$PG_OOM_ADJUST_VALUE.
(Possibly the smart way to fix this would be to change
src/backend/postmaster/fork_process.c to use PG_CHILD_OOM_SCORE_ADJ
instead.)
Christoph
--
cb@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/
