Re: silent_mode and LINUX_OOM_ADJ - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: silent_mode and LINUX_OOM_ADJ
Date
Msg-id BANLkTimVhiM9-Po+r-cQqz7NeB3BERdo_w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: silent_mode and LINUX_OOM_ADJ  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: silent_mode and LINUX_OOM_ADJ
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 16:37, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of vie jun 24 07:01:57 -0400 2011:
>> While reviewing Peter Geoghegan's postmaster death patch, I noticed that
>> if you turn on silent_mode, the LINUX_OOM_ADJ code in fork_process()
>> runs when postmaster forks itself into background. That re-enables the
>> OOM killer in postmaster, if you've disabled it in the startup script by
>> adjusting /proc/self/oom_adj. That seems like a bug, albeit a pretty
>> minor one.
>>
>> This may be a dumb question, but what is the purpose of silent_mode?
>> Can't you just use nohup?
>
> I think silent_mode is an artifact from when our daemon handling in
> general was a lot more primitive (I bet there wasn't even pg_ctl then).
> Maybe we could discuss removing it altogether.

If I'm not entirely mistaken, it's on by default in SuSE RPMs. I don't
have a box with access right now, but I've come across it a couple of
times recently with clients, and I think that's how it is. Might want
to doublecheck with the suse maintainer if there's a particular reason
they do that...


--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dean Rasheed
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: starting to review the Extend NOT NULL representation to pg_constraint patch
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe