| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CLOG contention, part 2 |
| Date: | 2012-01-21 13:57:45 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYdwNQJQ31wiWiZPodVCO-9CqyiOz3W_r8b549JsPfiXQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> D'oh. You're right. Looks like I accidentally tried to apply this to
>>> the 9.1 sources. Sigh...
>>
>> No worries. It's Friday.
Server passed 'make check' with this patch, but when I tried to fire
it up for some test runs, it fell over with:
FATAL: no more LWLockIds available
I assume that it must be dependent on the config settings used. Here are mine:
shared_buffers = 8GB
maintenance_work_mem = 1GB
synchronous_commit = off
checkpoint_segments = 300
checkpoint_timeout = 15min
checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9
wal_writer_delay = 20ms
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-01-21 15:11:04 | Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY? |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-01-21 13:08:44 | Re: pg_dump custom format specification |