Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily
Date: 2018-09-10 18:16:57
Message-ID: CA+TgmoasJ8xBt2F2QXRaf1q8+9auXFi2QT_fWMrWpCX837mkxw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> So my inclination is to remove the reportMemoryError = false parameter,
> and just let an error happen in the unlikely situation that we hit OOM
> for the lock table.

Wouldn't that take down the entire cluster with no restart?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message legrand legrand 2018-09-10 18:32:36 Re: pg_stat_statements query jumbling question
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2018-09-10 18:15:36 Re: can commitfest application resend a mail?