Bill Moran wrote:
> In response to Greg Smith <gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> <snipped...>
>
> I don't know, Greg. First off, the solution of making the postmaster
> immune to the OOM killer seems better than disabling overcommit to me
> anyway; and secondly, I don't understand why we should avoid making
> the PG documentation as comprehensive as possible, which seems to be
> what you are saying: "we shouldn't make the PG documentation too
> comprehensive, because then it will get very big"
I think it would be a hopeless morass for PostgreSQL to try to document each evolution of each OS it runs under; the general caveat seems fine, although perhaps adding something to the effect of "search the archives for possible specifics" might be in order. But tracking postgres's own shifts and requirements seems daunting enough w/out adding in endless flavours of different OSs.
My $0.02 worth ...
Greg Williamson
Senior DBA
DigitalGlobe
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information and must be protected in accordance with those provisions. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
(My corporate masters made me say this.)
