On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 16:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > That shared memory of the children should not be added to the size > > of the parent process multiple times regardless of if something's > > an essential process or not. Since those bytes are shared, it > > seems such bytes should only be added to the badness once, no? > > Certainly that would help, and it might be an easier sell to the kernel > hackers: instead of arguing "this policy is foolish", we only have to > say "your VM accounting is wildly inaccurate". We'd still end up with a > postmaster at more risk than we'd like, but at least not at dozens of > times more risk than any backend. >
I agree completely, and that's exactly the argument I tried to make on LKML a year ago: http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2007/2/12/54202 Regards, Jeff Davis ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
