| From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane) |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Anyone understand shared-memory space usage? |
| Date: | 1999-02-23 03:57:57 |
| Message-ID: | 199902230357.WAA03016@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I think it's entirely likely that this set of bugs can account for flaky
> behavior seen in installations with more than 256 shared-memory buffers
> (postmaster -B > 256), more than 256 simultaneously held locks (have no
> idea how to translate that into user terms), or more than 256 concurrent
> backends. I'm still wondering whether that might describe Daryl
> Dunbar's problem with locks not getting released, for example.
People have reported sloness/bugs with hash index lookups. Does this
relate to that?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1999-02-23 08:14:34 | Error messages, outer joins, etc |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-02-23 03:55:51 | Re: [GENERAL] Postgres Future: Postgres on Digital Alpha |