Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: shared memory release following failed lock acquirement.

From: "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: shared memory release following failed lock acquirement.
Date: 2004-09-30 12:09:30
Message-ID: 6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3412A74DB@Herge.rcsinc.local (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> The name max_locks_per_transaction indicates a limit of some kind. The
> documentation doesn't mention anything about whether that limit is
> enforced
> or not.
> I suggest the additional wording:
> "This parameter is not a hard limit: No limit is enforced on the
number of
> locks in each transaction. System-wide, the total number of locks is
> limited
> by the size of the lock table."

I think it's worse than that.  First of all, user locks persist outside
of transactions, but they apply to this limit.  A more appropriate name
for the GUC variable would be 'estimated_lock_table_size_per_backend',
or something like that.  I've been putting some thought into reworking
the userlock contrib module into something acceptable into the main
project, a substantial part of that being documentation changes.



pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2004-09-30 13:45:51
Subject: spurious function execution in prepared statements.
Previous:From: John DeSoiDate: 2004-09-30 12:00:45
Subject: looking for pgEdit beta testers

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group