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

Re: Modeling consumed shmem sizes, and some thorns

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Modeling consumed shmem sizes, and some thorns
Date: 2012-05-03 09:23:31
Message-ID: CA+U5nM+QCoahQ23hFx-WmqLCfHyAJFWrn-U0Eh5Z_jwpHSVfrw@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:

> Besides accuracy, there is a thornier problem here that has to do with
> hot standby (although the use case is replication more generally) when
> one has heterogeneously sized database resources. As-is, it is
> required that locking-related structures -- max_connections,
> max_prepared_xacts, and max_locks_per_xact (but not predicate locks,
> is that an oversight?) must be a larger number on a standby than on a
> primary.

>= not >
so you can use the same values on both sides

Predicate locks aren't set in recovery so the value isn't checked as a
required parameter value.

-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Daniel FarinaDate: 2012-05-03 09:33:06
Subject: Re: Modeling consumed shmem sizes, and some thorns
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2012-05-03 09:11:56
Subject: Re: Temporary tables under hot standby

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