| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Pang <jamespang886(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: lwlock:LockManager wait_events |
| Date: | 2024-10-25 07:36:45 |
| Message-ID: | f6065e6cc468acb43df2f0f953ef23a17efffebb.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, 2024-10-25 at 14:36 +0800, James Pang wrote:
> we faced into a lot of lwlock:LockManager wait-events , all of these queries are "select ..." ,
> there are other several session are doing DML, insert/update/delete on same table.
> Did these DML transactions holding "transactionid" and "tuple" lock blocking "select" on lwlock:LockManager ?
This is not about waiting for a lock. Rather, it means that very many sessions are trying
to take a lock. They have to grab the lock manager to take a lock, and the competition for
that resource is the bottleneck.
It is hard to say what is the root cause without further analysis, but very often the
cause is that you have too many connections to the database. Using an effective connection
pool *might* solve that particular problem.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2024-10-25 07:41:40 | Re: proposal: schema variables |
| Previous Message | James Pang | 2024-10-25 06:36:26 | lwlock:LockManager wait_events |