Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table
От
Neil Conway
Тема
Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table
Дата
Msg-id
1100577659.23420.68.camel@localhost.localdomain
Ответ на
Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table (Tom Lane)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
postmaster segfaults with HUGE table Joachim Wieland <joe@mcknight.de>
Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Re: postmaster segfaults with HUGE table Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 21:08 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Are we going to try to test whether the behavior is appropriate when > running out of memory to store the tlist? We absolutely should: segfaulting on OOM is not acceptable behavior. Testing that we recover safely when palloc() elogs (or _any_ routine elogs) would be a good idea. I'd guess model checking would help here. -Neil
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
