Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.5 items

Folks, do we have anything to revisit here?


> Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > 
> > I have just done cvs update and saw your changes. I tried the same
> > testing as I did before (64 conccurrent connections, and each
> > connection excutes 100 transactions), but it failed again.
> > 
> > (1) without -B 1024, it failed: out of free buffers: time to abort!
> > 
> > (2) with -B 1024, it went into stuck spin lock
> > 
> > So I looked into sources a little bit, and made a minor change to
> > include/storage/lock.h:
> > 
> > #define INIT_TABLE_SIZE                 100
> > 
> > to:
> > 
> > #define INIT_TABLE_SIZE                 4096
> > 
> > then restarted postmaster with -B 1024 (this will prevent
> > out-of-free-buffers problem, I guess). Now everything seems to work
> > great!
> > 
> > I suspect that huge INIT_TABLE_SIZE prevented dynamic expanding the
> > hash tables and seems there's something wrong in the routines
> > responsible for that.
> 
> Seems like that -:(
> 
> If we'll not fix expand hash code before 6.5 release then
> I would recommend to don't use INIT_TABLE_SIZE in
> 
>     lockMethodTable->lockHash = (HTAB *) ShmemInitHash(shmemName,
>                                          INIT_TABLE_SIZE, MAX_TABLE_SIZE,
>                                                        &info, hash_flags);
> 
> and
> 
>     lockMethodTable->xidHash = (HTAB *) ShmemInitHash(shmemName,
>                                          INIT_TABLE_SIZE, MAX_TABLE_SIZE,
>                                                       &info, hash_flags);
> 
> but use NLOCKENTS(maxBackends) instead.
> 
> Vadim
> 
> 


--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026