Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "KaiGai Kohei" <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, "Greg Smith" <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "KaiGai Kohei" <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Takahiro Itagaki" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jaime Casanova" <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>
Subject: Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
Date: 2010-01-24 17:53:35
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> I'm afraid pg_dump didn't get very far with this before:

> pg_dump: WARNING: out of shared memory
> pg_dump: SQL command failed

> Given how fast it happened, I suspect that it was 2672 tables into
> the dump, versus 26% of the way through 5.5 million tables.

Yeah, I didn't think about that. You'd have to bump
max_locks_per_transaction up awfully far to get to where pg_dump
could dump millions of tables, because it wants to lock each one.

It might be better to try a test case with lighter-weight objects,
say 5 million simple functions.

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-01-24 17:54:54 Re: tab completion for prepared transactions?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-01-24 17:50:30 Re: tab completion for prepared transactions?