| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager |
| Date: | 2018-04-26 19:10:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20180426191003.atidcbo3265lv37x@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-04-26 15:08:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I don't think that's a very useful suggestion. Changing
> N_RELEXTLOCK_ENTS requires a recompile, which is going to be
> impractical for most users. Even if we made it a GUC, we don't want
> users to have to tune stuff like this. If we actually think this is
> going to be a problem, we'd probably better rethink the desgin.
Agreed.
> I think the real question is whether the scenario is common enough to
> worry about. In practice, you'd have to be extremely unlucky to be
> doing many bulk loads at the same time that all happened to hash to
> the same bucket.
With a bunch of parallel bulkloads into partitioned tables that really
doesn't seem that unlikely?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jason Petersen | 2018-04-26 19:16:09 | Re: Setting rpath on llvmjit.so? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-26 19:09:01 | Re: Toast issues with OldestXmin going backwards |