Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: CLOG contention, part 2

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CLOG contention, part 2
Date: 2012-01-21 13:57:45
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYdwNQJQ31wiWiZPodVCO-9CqyiOz3W_r8b549JsPfiXQ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> D'oh.  You're right.  Looks like I accidentally tried to apply this to
>>> the 9.1 sources.  Sigh...
>>
>> No worries. It's Friday.

Server passed 'make check' with this patch, but when I tried to fire
it up for some test runs, it fell over with:

FATAL:  no more LWLockIds available

I assume that it must be dependent on the config settings used.  Here are mine:

shared_buffers = 8GB
maintenance_work_mem = 1GB
synchronous_commit = off
checkpoint_segments = 300
checkpoint_timeout = 15min
checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9
wal_writer_delay = 20ms

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2012-01-21 15:11:04
Subject: Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY?
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2012-01-21 13:08:44
Subject: Re: pg_dump custom format specification

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group