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

From Ron Mayer
Subject Re: configurability of OOM killer
Date
Msg-id 47A78449.4000104@cheapcomplexdevices.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: configurability of OOM killer  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: configurability of OOM killer  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: configurability of OOM killer  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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.

Wouldn't the more general rule that Jeff Davis pointed out upstream
make more sense?

That shared memory of the children should not be added to the size
of the parent process multiple times regardless of if something's
an essential process or not.    Since those bytes are shared, it
seems such bytes should only be added to the badness once, no?


(assuming I understood Jeff correctly)



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: 0123 zyxw
Date:
Subject: Re: FW: bitemporal functionality for PostgreSQL
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: configurability of OOM killer