Coping with nLocks overflow
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Coping with nLocks overflow |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 21198.1221518226@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: Coping with nLocks overflow
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
We have recently seen one definite and one probable report of overflow of the nLocks field of a backend's local lock table: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2008-09/msg00021.php While it's still unclear exactly why 8.3 seems more prone to this than earlier releases, the general shape of the problem seems clear enough. We have many code paths that intentionally take a lock on some object and leave it locked until end of transaction. Repeat such a command on the same object enough times within one transaction, and voila, overflow. What's news, perhaps, is that we've reached a performance level where this can actually happen within transactions of lengths that people might try to run. I'm considering that a simple solution to this might be to widen nLocks from int to int64. This would definitely fix it on machines that have working int64 arithmetic, and if there are any left that do not, they're probably not fast enough to encounter the overflow in real-world usage anyway. For machines that aren't native 64-bit it would add a couple of cycles to lock acquisition/release, but that's hardly likely to be measurable compared to all the other work done in LockAcquire/LockRelease. Comments, objections? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: