Re: Tom Lane 2014-07-01 <[email protected]> > Yeah, I'm unexcited about this proposal. In any case, given the two > existing APIs we have to deal with, allowing PG_OOM_ADJUST_VALUE to > default to "0" is sane in both APIs but a default for the file name > can work for only one.
Nod. > Fair enough. I went for a minimum-change approach when hacking that > script, but we could change it some more in the name of readability. > Will do something about that. Thanks, it's much nicer now. There's one uglyness left though: The name PG_CHILD_OOM_SCORE_ADJ should match what actually gets passed to the backends, DAEMON_ENV="PG_OOM_ADJUST_FILE=$PG_OOM_ADJUST_FILE PG_OOM_ADJUST_VALUE=$PG_CHILD_OOM_SCORE_ADJ" would better be PG_OOM_ADJUST_VALUE=$PG_OOM_ADJUST_VALUE. (Possibly the smart way to fix this would be to change src/backend/postmaster/fork_process.c to use PG_CHILD_OOM_SCORE_ADJ instead.) Christoph -- [email protected] | http://www.df7cb.de/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
