Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily
Date: 2018-09-11 16:12:32
Message-ID: 20180911161232.d6ajdhkbss7vdeky@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2018-09-11 12:03:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > Isn't one of the most common ways to run into "out of shared memory"
> > "You might need to increase max_locks_per_transaction." to run pg_dump?
> > And that's pretty commonly done against standbys?
>
> If the startup process has acquired enough AELs to approach locktable
> full, any concurrent pg_dump has probably failed already, because it'd
> be trying to share-lock every table and so would have a huge conflict
> cross-section; it's hard to believe it wouldn't get cancelled pretty
> early in that process. (Again, if you think this scenario is probable,
> you have to explain the lack of field complaints.)

I was thinking of the other way round - there's a running pg_dump and
then somebody does a bit of DDL (say a DROP SCHEMA CASCADE in a
multi-tenant scenario).

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-09-11 16:18:59 Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-09-11 16:03:44 Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily