On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Tom Lane wrote: > David Fetter <david@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 04:43:14PM -0800, Richard Troy wrote: > >> ... different in my opinion if only Unix didn't have this asenine view > >> that the choice between a memory management strategy that kills > >> random processes and turning that off and accepting that your system > >> hangs is a reasonable choice and that spending a measily % of > >> performance in overhead to eliminate the problem is out of the > >> question. Asenine, I tell you. > > > The OOM killer in Linux is, indeed, asinine. > > Well, it probably has some use for desktop systems, or would if it could > distinguish essential from inessential processes. But please Richard: > Linux is not Unix, it's merely one implementation of a Unix-ish system. > You are tarring *BSD, Solaris, HPUX, and a bunch of others with a > failing that is not theirs. ...Hmmm, You're Right, Tom, no tarring intended beyond that deserved. Skipping the "is Linux a varriant of Unix" debate, I was apparently under the mistaken impression that at the very least HPUX and Solaris share this OOM Killer -ahem- feature as folks made comments to that effect on one of the PG lists a few months ago - or, perhaps I simply misread/misunderstood. Meanwhile, it's a very useful question to ask what the most reliable platforms are to run your production Postgres installations on, though it deserves its own thread, rather than treading on a cross-db-same-server dialogue. Regards, Richard -- Richard Troy, Chief Scientist Science Tools Corporation 510-924-1363 or 202-747-1263 rtroy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, http://ScienceTools.com/
