On Fri, 2022-09-02 at 09:30 +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote: > Hi, > > I'm not sure we are choosing the right victims here (aka the ones > that are doing the request that will push the total over the limit). > > Imagine an extreme case where a single backend consumes say 99% of > the limit, shouldn't it be the one to be "punished"? (and somehow forced > to give the memory back). > > The problem that i see with the current approach is that a "bad" > backend could impact all the others and continue to do so. > > what about punishing say the highest consumer , what do you think? > (just speaking about the general idea here, not about the implementation)
Initially, we believe that punishing the detector is reasonable if we can help administrators avoid the OOM killer/resource starvation. But we can and should expand on this idea. Another thought is, rather than just failing the query/transaction we have the affected backend do a clean exit, freeing all it's resources. -- Reid Thompson Senior Software Engineer Crunchy Data, Inc. reid.thomp...@crunchydata.com www.crunchydata.com
