Thanks Tom. In the original plan a query of this sort was never supposed to happen, but it looks like some coding issues may have allowed it.
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
Sent: September-19-12 2:04 PM
To: Michael Holt
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] max_locks_per_transaction and partitioned tables
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
pgsql-admin by date
|Next:||From: Rubén Crespo Flores||Date: 2012-09-19 21:21:32|
|Subject: Problem creating temporary tables . . .|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-09-19 21:03:39|
|Subject: Re: max_locks_per_transaction and partitioned tables|