Greg Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>
>> Re the OOM killer -- maybe a patch to the kernel could make things
>> "better"??
>
> People have tried to raise awareness of it; sample:
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/9/275
>
> without much success. The Linux kernel
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
Re the OOM killer -- maybe a patch to the kernel could make things
"better"??
People have tried to raise awareness of it; sample:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/9/275
without much success. The Linux kernel hackers dislike the whole approach
P
Greg Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Dave Youatt wrote:
>
>> Does it just accept the configuration parameters provided (e.g. --
>> shared_buffers, effective_cache_size, etc.)?
>
> That's it. The only time PostgreSQL gets a report from the OS related
> to memory is if it makes an allocation a
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Dave Youatt wrote:
Does it just accept the configuration parameters provided (e.g. --
shared_buffers, effective_cache_size, etc.)?
That's it. The only time PostgreSQL gets a report from the OS related to
memory is if it makes an allocation attempt that fails. Couldn't c
Apologies if this is a FAQ, but...
Given linux's (mis)accounting/reporting of per-process memory, including
shared memory (see for example this page:
http://lwn.net/Articles/230975/) how does postgresql interpret and use
the information that's provided? Does it use the information as-is?
Does i
