On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 04:43:14PM -0800, Richard Troy wrote:
> >> ... different in my opinion if only Unix didn't have this asenine view
> >> that the choice between a memory management strategy that kills
> >> random processes and turning that off and accepting that your system
> >> hangs is a reasonable choice and that spending a measily % of
> >> performance in overhead to eliminate the problem is out of the
> >> question. Asenine, I tell you.
>
> > The OOM killer in Linux is, indeed, asinine.
>
> Well, it probably has some use for desktop systems, or would if it could
> distinguish essential from inessential processes. But please Richard:
> Linux is not Unix, it's merely one implementation of a Unix-ish system.
> You are tarring *BSD, Solaris, HPUX, and a bunch of others with a
> failing that is not theirs.
...Hmmm, You're Right, Tom, no tarring intended beyond that deserved.
Skipping the "is Linux a varriant of Unix" debate, I was apparently under
the mistaken impression that at the very least HPUX and Solaris share this
OOM Killer -ahem- feature as folks made comments to that effect on one of
the PG lists a few months ago - or, perhaps I simply
misread/misunderstood.
Meanwhile, it's a very useful question to ask what the most reliable
platforms are to run your production Postgres installations on, though it
deserves its own thread, rather than treading on a cross-db-same-server
dialogue.
Regards,
Richard
--
Richard Troy, Chief Scientist
Science Tools Corporation
510-924-1363 or 202-747-1263
rtroy@ScienceTools.com, http://ScienceTools.com/
