| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: getting to beta |
| Date: | 2011-04-06 17:08:52 |
| Message-ID: | 5382.1302109732@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 06.04.2011 17:46, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I confess to not having been reading the discussions about SSI very
>> much, but ... do we actually care whether there's a free-for-all?
>> What's the downside to letting the remaining shmem get claimed by
>> whichever table uses it first?
> It's leads to odd behavior. You start the database, and your application
> runs fine. Then you restart the database, and now you get "out of shared
> memory" errors from transactions that used to work.
If you get "out of shared memory" at all due to SSI, I'd say that that's
the problem, not exactly when it happens. I thought that the patch
included provisions for falling back to coarser-grained locks whenever
it was short of resources.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | aaronenabs | 2011-04-06 17:15:39 | Re: Transaction log |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-04-06 17:04:23 | Re: Transaction log |