Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20180911161232.d6ajdhkbss7vdeky@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 2018-09-11 12:03:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > Isn't one of the most common ways to run into "out of shared memory" > > "You might need to increase max_locks_per_transaction." to run pg_dump? > > And that's pretty commonly done against standbys? > > If the startup process has acquired enough AELs to approach locktable > full, any concurrent pg_dump has probably failed already, because it'd > be trying to share-lock every table and so would have a huge conflict > cross-section; it's hard to believe it wouldn't get cancelled pretty > early in that process. (Again, if you think this scenario is probable, > you have to explain the lack of field complaints.) I was thinking of the other way round - there's a running pg_dump and then somebody does a bit of DDL (say a DROP SCHEMA CASCADE in a multi-tenant scenario). Greetings, Andres Freund
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: