Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily
Date: 2018-09-11 15:29:29
Message-ID: 20180911152929.7xo4qgb3eyz6djfu@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2018-09-11 16:23:44 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> It's hard to see how any reasonable workload would affect the standby. And
> if it did, you'd change the parameter and restart, just like you already
> have to do if someone changes max_connections on master first.

Isn't one of the most common ways to run into "out of shared memory"
"You might need to increase max_locks_per_transaction." to run pg_dump?
And that's pretty commonly done against standbys?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-09-11 15:33:02 Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily
Previous Message Fabien COELHO 2018-09-11 15:29:03 Re: [HACKERS] WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors