Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> This suggests that PG's shared memory ought not be counted in the
> postmaster's OOM score, which would mean that the problem
> shouldn't be quite as bad as we've believed. I wonder if that is
> a recent change? Or maybe it's supposed to be that way and is not
> implemented correctly?
I've wondered about that based on my experience. When I found that
memory leak back in 8.2devel, running on a SLES 9 SP 3 system, the
OOM killer killed the offending backend rather than the postmaster,
although it took out a couple Java middle tier processes before
starting in on PostgreSQL.
-Kevin
