| From: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org> |
| Cc: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, John Hansen <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PG Killed by OOM Condition |
| Date: | 2005-10-04 08:59:05 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0510041048260.28238-100000@zigo.dhs.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Jeff Davis wrote:
> involved, but I could be wrong. Is it possible to be hit by the OOM
> killer if no applications use fork()?
Sure, whenever the system is out of mem and the os can't find a free page
then it kills a process. If you check the kernel log you can see if the
oom killer have been doing some work.
--
/Dennis Björklund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-10-04 09:16:40 | Re: Tuning current tuplesort external sort code for 8.2 |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2005-10-04 06:47:57 | Re: PG Killed by OOM Condition |