Re: max_locks_per_transaction and partitioned tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Holt <MHolt(at)terapeak(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: max_locks_per_transaction and partitioned tables
Date: 2012-09-19 21:03:39
Message-ID: 9791.1348088619@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

Michael Holt <MHolt(at)terapeak(dot)com> writes:
> We've had a system in operation for a few years that makes use of a substantial amount of partitioning. The parent table now has over 4,000 children tables. Within the last couple of days the server started giving "out of shared memory" errors with the suggestion to increase the max_locks_per_transaction.
> If the parent table is queried will it require a lock for each one of the child tables? I'm guessing it will.

Yup, it will. I'm a bit astonished that you've gotten this far without
horrid performance problems. The underlying mechanisms for inheritance
aren't really designed to scale past perhaps a hundred child tables.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Holt 2012-09-19 21:17:45 Re: max_locks_per_transaction and partitioned tables
Previous Message Michael Holt 2012-09-19 18:28:16 max_locks_per_transaction and partitioned tables