| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Anyone understand shared-memory space usage? |
| Date: | 1999-02-23 15:05:15 |
| Message-ID: | 11301.919782315@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> I think it's entirely likely that this set of bugs can account for flaky
>> behavior seen in installations with more than 256 shared-memory buffers
>> (postmaster -B > 256), more than 256 simultaneously held locks (have no
>> idea how to translate that into user terms), or more than 256 concurrent
>> backends. I'm still wondering whether that might describe Daryl
>> Dunbar's problem with locks not getting released, for example.
> People have reported sloness/bugs with hash index lookups. Does this
> relate to that?
It looks like the routines in src/backend/access/hash/ don't use the
code in src/backend/utils/hash/ at all, so my guess is that whatever
bugs might lurk in hash indexes are unrelated.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-02-23 15:16:13 | Re: [HACKERS] copyObject() ? |
| Previous Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1999-02-23 08:14:34 | Error messages, outer joins, etc |