On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Gurjeet Singh <gurj...@singh.im> writes: >> Startup scripts are not solely in the domain of packagers. End users >> can also be expected to develop/edit their own startup scripts. > >> Providing it as GUC would have given end users both the peices, but >> with a compile-time option they have only one half of the solution; >> except if they go compile their own binaries, which forces them into >> being packagers. > > I don't find that this argument holds any water at all. Anyone who's > developing their own start script can be expected to manage recompiling > Postgres.
I respectfully disagree. Writing and managing init/start scripts requires much different set of expertise than compiling and managing builds of a critical software like a database product. I would consider adding `echo -1000 > /proc/self/oom_score_adj` to a start script as a deployment specific tweak, and not 'developing own start script'. > Extra GUCs do not have zero cost, especially not ones that are as > complicated-to-explain as this would be. > > I would also argue that there's a security issue with making it a GUC. > A non-root DBA should not have the authority to decide whether or not > postmaster child processes run with nonzero OOM adjustment; that decision > properly belongs to whoever has authorized the root-owned startup script > to change the adjustment in the first place. So seeing this as two > independent pieces is not only wrong but dangerous. >From experiments last night, I see that child process' oom_score_adj is capped by the parent process' setting that is forking. So I don't think it's a security risk from that perspective. I'll retest and provide the exact findings. Best regards, -- Gurjeet Singh http://gurjeet.singh.im/ EDB www.EnterpriseDB.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
