Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> If you think your users might want to give the postmaster OOM-exemption,
>> why don't you just activate the existing code when you build? Resetting
>> the OOM setting to zero is safe whether or not the startup script did
>> anything to the postmaster's setting.
> The whole scenario here is that the user *doesn't want to recompile*.
Yeah, I understood that. The question is why EDB isn't satisfied to just
add "-DLINUX_OOM_ADJ=0" to their build options, but instead would like to
dump a bunch of uncertainty on other packagers who might not like the
implications of a GUC.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
