Re: Lock partitions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
Cc: "Strong, David" <david(dot)strong(at)unisys(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Lock partitions
Date: 2006-09-13 21:18:33
Message-ID: 16849.1158182313@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
> Isn't having more lock partitions than buffer partitions pointless?

AFAIK they're pretty orthogonal. It's true though that a typical
transaction doesn't hold all that many locks, which is why I don't
see a need for a large number of lock partitions.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron Mayer 2006-09-13 21:24:24 Re: Optimizer improvements: to do or not to do?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-09-13 21:16:54 Re: CVS commit messages and backpatching