Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > This suggests that PG's shared memory ought not be counted in the > postmaster's OOM score, which would mean that the problem > shouldn't be quite as bad as we've believed. I wonder if that is > a recent change? Or maybe it's supposed to be that way and is not > implemented correctly? I've wondered about that based on my experience. When I found that memory leak back in 8.2devel, running on a SLES 9 SP 3 system, the OOM killer killed the offending backend rather than the postmaster, although it took out a couple Java middle tier processes before starting in on PostgreSQL. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
