Andres Freund <andres@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 2017-11-16 21:39:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> What might be worth thinking about is allowing the syslogger process to >> inherit the postmaster's OOM-kill-proofness setting, instead of dropping >> down to the same vulnerability as the postmaster's other child processes. > Hm. I'm a bit scared about that - it doesn't seem that inconceivable > that various backends log humongous multi-line messages, leading to > syslogger *actually* taking up a fair amount of memory. Note that we're > using plain stringinfos that ereport(ERROR) out of memory situations, > rather than failing more gracefully. True, but there's no hard limits on the postmaster's memory consumption either ... and if the syslogger does get killed on such a basis, we have at the least lost a bunch of log output. On the whole I think we'd be better off trying to prevent OOM kills on the syslogger. (That doesn't preclude other mitigation measures.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
