From: | "Kynn Jones" <kynnjo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-general General" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: shared memory/max_locks_per_transaction error |
Date: | 2008-03-17 15:52:52 |
Message-ID: | c2350ba40803170852l67c0a631i8b562f64f0045830@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom, Alvaro:
Thank you much for the clarification. It's "back to the drawing board" for
me!
Kynn
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Kynn Jones" <kynnjo(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I'm leaning towards the re-design option, primarily because I really
> don't
> > really understand the consequences of cranking up
> max_locks_per_transaction.
> > E.g. Why is its default value 2^6, instead of, say, 2^15? In fact, why
> is
> > there a ceiling on the number of locks at all?
>
> Because the size of the lock table in shared memory has to be set at
> postmaster start.
>
> There are people running DBs with a couple hundred thousand tables,
> but I don't know what sorts of performance problems they face when
> they try to run pg_dump. I think most SQL experts would suggest
> a redesign: if you have lots of essentially identical tables the
> standard advice is to fold them all into one table with one more
> key column.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-03-17 15:54:16 | Re: postgre vs MySQL |
Previous Message | Gauthier, Dave | 2008-03-17 15:45:59 | Re: Catch-22 |