Re: Shared row locking

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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