Re: configurability of OOM killer
От | Ron Mayer |
---|---|
Тема | Re: configurability of OOM killer |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 47A8DB09.6000803@cheapcomplexdevices.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: configurability of OOM killer (Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: configurability of OOM killer
Re: configurability of OOM killer |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Decibel! wrote: > > Yes, this problem goes way beyond OOM. Just try and configure > work_memory aggressively on a server that might see 50 database > connections, and do it in such a way that you won't swap. Good luck. That sounds like an even broader and more difficult problem than managing memory. If you have 50 connections that all want to perform large sorts, what do you want to have happen? a) they each do their sorts in parallel with small amounts of memory for each; probably all spilling to disk? b) theyeach get a big chunk of memory but some have to wait for each other? c) something else? Seems (a)'s already possible today with setting small work_mem. Seems (b)'s already possible today with a larger work_mem and pg_pool. Stepping back from the technical details, what do you think should happen. (though perhaps it should be taken to a different thread)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: