From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org (Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?=) |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add GUCs for predicate lock promotion thresholds |
Date: | 2017-01-05 18:19:34 |
Message-ID: | 8545.1483640374@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org (Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?=) writes:
> ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker) writes:
>> One thing I don't like about this patch is that if a user has increased
>> max_pred_locks_per_transaction, they need to set
>> max_pred_locks_per_relation to half of that to retain the current
>> behaviour, or they'll suddenly find themselves with a lot more relation
>> locks. If it's possible to make a GUCs default value dependent on the
>> value of another, that could be a solution. Otherwise, the page lock
>> threshold GUC could be changed to be expressed as a fraction of
>> max_pred_locks_per_transaction, to keep the current behaviour.
> Another option would be to have a special sentinel (e.g. -1) which is
> the default, and keeps the current behaviour.
FWIW, interdependent GUC defaults are generally unworkable.
See commit a16d421ca and the sorry history that led up to it.
I think you could make it work as a fraction, though.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Euler Taveira | 2017-01-05 18:54:56 | Re: ALTER SYSTEM for pg_hba.conf |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-01-05 18:15:39 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix possible crash reading pg_stat_activity. |