On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Gurjeet Singh <gurj...@singh.im> writes: >> While I'd love to reduce the number of future installations without >> this fix in place, I respect the decision to honor project policy. At >> the same time, this change does not break anything. It introduces new >> environment variables which change the behaviour, but behaves the old >> way in the absence of those variables. > > Uh, no, it doesn't. We removed the dependence on -DLINUX_OOM_SCORE_ADJ. > If a packager is expecting that to still work in 9.4, he's going to be > unpleasantly surprised, because the system will silently fail to do what > he's expecting: it will run all the backend processes at no-OOM-kill > priority, which is likely to be bad.
True. I didn't think from a packager's perspective. > It is possible to make packages that will work either way, along the lines > of the advice I sent to the Red Hat guys: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110969 > > but I think it's a bit late in the cycle to be telling packagers to do > that for 9.4. Understandable. >> BTW, does the project publish the feature-freeze deadlines and other >> dates somewhere (apart from on this list). > > It's usually in the dev meeting minutes > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PgCon_2014_Developer_Meeting#9.5_Schedule Thanks. But it doesn't spell out the specific dates, or even the month of feature-freeze. 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
