| From: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Shared row locking |
| Date: | 2004-12-20 15:58:31 |
| Message-ID: | 6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3412A757A@Herge.rcsinc.local |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > I think if we allow the lock manager to spill to disk (and I think
we do
> > need to allow it) then we should also be able to control the amount
of
> > shared memory allocated.
>
> You mean like max_locks_per_transaction?
IMO, max_locks_per_transaction could use a better name a little more
documentation. I've mentioned this a couple of times before, but there
is at least one type of lock that does not expire when the transaction
ends (user locks).
I may be over my head here, but I think lock spillover is dangerous. In
the extreme situations where this would happen, it would be a real
performance buster. Personally, I would rather see locks escalate when
the table gets full, or at least allow this as a configuration
parameter.
Merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-12-20 16:47:41 | Re: Shared row locking |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-12-20 15:50:07 | Re: Help extending pg_class |