On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:37, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> writes: >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Does anyone want >>> to argue for doing something more complicated, and if so what exactly? > >> Well there's no harm trying to write to oom_score_adj and if that >> fails with EEXISTS trying to write to oom_adj.
Yeah, I don't really like the idea of a compile time option that is kernel version dependent... But i don't feel too strongly about it either (all my kernels are new enough that they support oom_score_adj). I'll also note that on my system we are in the good company of ssd and chromium: sshd (978): /proc/978/oom_adj is deprecated, please use /proc/978/oom_score_adj instead. chromium-sandbo (1377): /proc/1375/oom_adj is deprecated, please use /proc/1375/oom_score_adj instead. [ It quite annoying that soon after we decided to stick -DLINUX_OOM_ADJ in they changed it. Whatever happened to a stable userspace API :-( ] -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers