Re: Avoid orphaned objects dependencies, take 3

Hi Robert,

On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 5:50 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 7:49 AM Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > If the dependency is more, this can hit max_locks_per_transaction
> > limit very fast.
>
> Your experiment doesn't support this conclusion. Very few users would
> have 15 separate user-defined types in the same table, and even if
> they did, and dropped the table, using 23 locks is no big deal. By
> default, max_locks_per_transaction is 64, so the user would need to
> have more like 45 separate user-defined types in the same table in
> order to use more than 64 locks. So, yes, it is possible that if every
> backend in the system were simultaneously trying to drop a table and
> all of those tables had an average of at least 45 or so user-defined
> types, all different from each other, you might run out of lock table
> space.
>
> But probably nobody will ever do that in real life, and if they did,
> they could just raise max_locks_per_transaction.
>
> When posting about potential problems like this, it is a good idea to
> first do a careful thought experiment to assess how realistic the
> problem is. I would consider an issue like this serious if there were
> a realistic scenario under which a small number of backends could
> exhaust the lock table for the whole system, but I think you can see
> that this isn't the case here. Even your original scenario is more
> extreme than what most people are likely to hit in real life, and it
> only uses 23 locks.
>

I agree that based on the experiment I shared (which is somewhat
unrealistic), this doesn't seem to have any significant implications.
However, I was concerned that it could potentially increase the usage
of max_locks_per_transaction, which is why I wanted to mention it
here. Nonetheless, my experiment did not reveal any serious issues
related to this. Sorry for the noise.

--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma.