Re: vacuumlo issue

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: MUHAMMAD ASIF <anaeem(dot)it(at)hotmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: vacuumlo issue
Date: 2012-03-20 14:53:07
Message-ID: 25231.1332255187@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

MUHAMMAD ASIF <anaeem(dot)it(at)hotmail(dot)com> writes:
> We have noticed the following issue with vacuumlo database that have millions of record in pg_largeobject i.e.
> WARNING: out of shared memoryFailed to remove lo 155987: ERROR: out of shared memory HINT: You might need to increase max_locks_per_transaction.
> Why do we need to increase max_locks_per_transaction/shared memory for
> clean up operation,

This seems to be a consequence of the 9.0-era decision to fold large
objects into the standard dependency-deletion algorithm and hence
take out locks on them individually.

I'm not entirely convinced that that was a good idea. However, so far
as vacuumlo is concerned, the only reason this is a problem is that
vacuumlo goes out of its way to do all the large-object deletions in a
single transaction. What's the point of that? It'd be useful to batch
them, probably, rather than commit each deletion individually. But the
objects being deleted are by assumption unreferenced, so I see no
correctness argument why they should need to go away all at once.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Albe Laurenz 2012-03-20 14:53:37 Re: vacuumlo issue
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2012-03-20 14:44:21 Re: Error trying to compile a simple C trigger