Alvaro Herrera <> writes:
> Now the problem is that we have defined the LINUX_OOM_ADJ symbol as
> meaning the value we're going to write.  Maybe this wasn't the best
> choice.  I mean, it's very flexible, but it doesn't seem to offer any
> benefit over a plain boolean choice.

> Is your proposal to create a new LINUX_OOM_SCORE_ADJ cpp symbol with the
> same semantics?

Yes, that's what I was thinking.  We could avoid that if we were going
to hard-wire a decision that zero is the thing to write, but I see no
reason to place such a restriction on users.  Who's to say they might
not want backends to adopt some other value?

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to