Re: BUG #6629: Creating a gist index fails with "too many LWLocks taken"
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #6629: Creating a gist index fails with "too many LWLocks taken" |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4FAD1EC1.2000502@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #6629: Creating a gist index fails with "too many LWLocks taken" (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #6629: Creating a gist index fails with "too many
LWLocks taken"
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On 11.05.2012 16:56, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 11 May 2012 11:07, Heikki Linnakangas > <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> I wonder if we should reserve a few of the lwlock "slots" for critical >> sections, to make this less likely to happen. Not only in this case, but in >> general. We haven't seen this problem often, but it would be quite trivial >> to reserve a few slots. > > Why reserve them solely for critical sections? Because if you run out of lwlocks in a critical section, you get a PANIC. > What is the downside from having>100 slots for general use. > > ISTM we should have 250 slots and log a warning if we ever hit 50 or more. Then we would be back to square one, if a piece of code acquires 250 locks, then enters a critical section, and tries to acquire one more lock -> PANIC. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: