Re: Lock partitions

From: Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: "Strong, David" <david(dot)strong(at)unisys(dot)com>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Lock partitions
Date: 2006-09-13 20:37:41
Message-ID: 77177806-645E-4AAE-901E-8F6A64BC78D0@nasby.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sep 13, 2006, at 2:46 PM, Strong, David wrote:
> We have some results for you. We left the buffer partition locks at
> 128
> as this did not seem to be a concern and we're still using 25 backend
> processes. We ran tests for 4, 8 and 16 lock partitions.

Isn't having more lock partitions than buffer partitions pointless?
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-09-13 20:50:02 Re: - Proposal for repreparing prepared statements
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-09-13 20:35:53 Re: Lock partitions