Re: query against pg_locks leads to large memory alloc

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Matheus de Oliveira <matioli(dot)matheus(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Dave Owens <dave(at)teamunify(dot)com>, postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: query against pg_locks leads to large memory alloc
Date: 2014-08-18 21:29:10
Message-ID: CAHyXU0w+haLQ2UdU_XjyiEPnC_Xp24QM4QjNYXFXQhtkvdSsgA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Matheus de Oliveira
<matioli(dot)matheus(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Dave Owens <dave(at)teamunify(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> max_locks_per_transaction = 9000
>> max_pred_locks_per_transaction = 40000

performance of any query to pg_locks is proportional to the setting of
max_locks_per_transaction. still, something is awry here. can you
'explain' that query? also, what's the answer you get when:

SELECT COUNT(*) from pg_locks;

?
merlin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Owens 2014-08-18 21:36:52 Re: query against pg_locks leads to large memory alloc
Previous Message Matheus de Oliveira 2014-08-18 21:21:59 Re: query against pg_locks leads to large memory alloc