Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 07:27, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Then, somebody who wants the feature would build with, say,
>> -DLINUX_OOM_ADJ=0
>> or another value if they want that.
> Here is a stab at that.
Applied with some editorialization. I concluded that it'd be better to
put the oom_adj reset right into fork_process, rather than scattering
the support across several different files. The latter seems vulnerable
to errors of omission in future versions, and there's no really strong
reason to not have all the child processes behave the same. Also, a
single-file patch is a lot easier for packagers to borrow and apply to
existing releases, should they choose to. (Already done and tested in
Fedora packages ...)
regards, tom lane