On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im> writes:
>> While I'd love to reduce the number of future installations without
>> this fix in place, I respect the decision to honor project policy. At
>> the same time, this change does not break anything. It introduces new
>> environment variables which change the behaviour, but behaves the old
>> way in the absence of those variables.
>
> Uh, no, it doesn't. We removed the dependence on -DLINUX_OOM_SCORE_ADJ.
> If a packager is expecting that to still work in 9.4, he's going to be
> unpleasantly surprised, because the system will silently fail to do what
> he's expecting: it will run all the backend processes at no-OOM-kill
> priority, which is likely to be bad.
True. I didn't think from a packager's perspective.
> It is possible to make packages that will work either way, along the lines
> of the advice I sent to the Red Hat guys:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110969
>
> but I think it's a bit late in the cycle to be telling packagers to do
> that for 9.4.
Understandable.
>> BTW, does the project publish the feature-freeze deadlines and other
>> dates somewhere (apart from on this list).
>
> It's usually in the dev meeting minutes
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PgCon_2014_Developer_Meeting#9.5_Schedule
Thanks. But it doesn't spell out the specific dates, or even the month
of feature-freeze.
Best regards,
--
Gurjeet Singh http://gurjeet.singh.im/
EDB www.EnterpriseDB.com
