On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I fail to see the difference between the OOM killing it and the power going out. And yes, if the power went out and PG came up with a corrupted DB (assuming I didn't turn off fsync, etc) I *would* blame PG. I understand that killing the postmaster could stop all useful PG work, that it could cause it to stop responding to clients, that it could even "crash" PG, et ceterabut if a particular process dying causes corrupted DBs, that sounds borked to me.
> wait a min here, postgres is supposed to be able to survive a complete boxYes it is a major problem, but not with postgresql. It's a major
> failure without corrupting the database, if killing a process can corrupt
> the database it sounds like a major problem.
problem with the linux OOM killer killing processes that should not be
killed.
Would it be postgresql's fault if it corrupted data because my machine
had bad memory? Or a bad hard drive? This is the same kind of
failure. The postmaster should never be killed. It's the one thing
holding it all together.
I fail to see the difference between the OOM killing it and the power going out. And yes, if the power went out and PG came up with a corrupted DB (assuming I didn't turn off fsync, etc) I *would* blame PG. I understand that killing the postmaster could stop all useful PG work, that it could cause it to stop responding to clients, that it could even "crash" PG, et ceterabut if a particular process dying causes corrupted DBs, that sounds borked to me.
