Re: max_prepared_transactions default ... why 5?

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Decibel!" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Cc: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: max_prepared_transactions default ... why 5?
Date: 2007-10-18 16:23:47
Message-ID: 87ejfswfvw.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


"Decibel!" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:

> Actually, the amount of memory is a reason to default to 0, or change the
> name, or put a big comment in the config, because I very often saw databases
> where people had set this to a very high value under the impression that it
> impacted prepared statements.

There's another cost associated with prepared transactions. If it's set to 0
then there's no real reason we need to wal log lock operations.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Billow Gao 2007-10-18 16:27:59 Re: Can a C function(server program) be a UDP or TCP server?
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2007-10-18 16:22:47 Re: Can a C function(server program) be a UDP or TCP server?