Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: max_locks_per_transactions ...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Zoltan Boszormenyi <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Subject: Re: max_locks_per_transactions ...
Date: 2007-02-01 18:02:37
Message-ID: 20055.1170352957@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> i would suggest to replace the existing parameter but something else:
>     - a switch to define the global size of the lock pool (e.g. "max_locks")
>     - a switch which defines the upper limit for the current backend / 
> transaction

The problem with that is that it's pretty much guaranteed to break
pg_dump, as pg_dump always needs a lot of locks.  We could perhaps
change pg_dump to increase its limit value (assuming that that's not a
privileged operation), but the fact that a counterexample is so handy
makes me doubt that this is a better design than what we have.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Ron MayerDate: 2007-02-01 19:03:11
Subject: Re: A more general approach (Re: Data archiving/warehousing idea)
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-02-01 17:31:47
Subject: Re: A more general approach (Re: Data archiving/warehousing idea)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group