| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Paul Friedman <paul(dot)friedman(at)streetlightdata(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: LWLocks by LockManager slowing large DB |
| Date: | 2021-04-14 13:20:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20210414132046.GA30141@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hello
On 2021-Apr-13, Andres Freund wrote:
> > The concerns that had come to my mind were more along the lines
> > of things like pg_dump requiring a larger footprint in the shared
> > lock table. We could alleviate that by increasing the default
> > value of max_locks_per_transaction, perhaps.
>
> Probably worth doing one of these releases independently - especially
> with partitioning the current value strikes me as being on the too low
> side.
Maybe it would make sense to scale the default up with shared_buffers,
which nowadays we seem to use as a proxy for server size? (While also
being about total memory consumption)
--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile
"How amazing is that? I call it a night and come back to find that a bug has
been identified and patched while I sleep." (Robert Davidson)
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2006-03/msg00378.php
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rollo Konig-Brock | 2021-04-14 23:10:40 | Why is there a tenfold difference between Postgres's alleged query execution time and packet transmission time? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-04-14 06:57:21 | Re: [PATCH] force_parallel_mode and GUC categories |