Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add GUCs for predicate lock promotion thresholds
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add GUCs for predicate lock promotion thresholds |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 8545.1483640374@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add GUCs for predicate lock promotion thresholds (ilmari@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker)) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add GUCs for predicate lock promotion thresholds
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
ilmari@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker) writes:
> ilmari@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker) writes:
>> One thing I don't like about this patch is that if a user has increased
>> max_pred_locks_per_transaction, they need to set
>> max_pred_locks_per_relation to half of that to retain the current
>> behaviour, or they'll suddenly find themselves with a lot more relation
>> locks. If it's possible to make a GUCs default value dependent on the
>> value of another, that could be a solution. Otherwise, the page lock
>> threshold GUC could be changed to be expressed as a fraction of
>> max_pred_locks_per_transaction, to keep the current behaviour.
> Another option would be to have a special sentinel (e.g. -1) which is
> the default, and keeps the current behaviour.
FWIW, interdependent GUC defaults are generally unworkable.
See commit a16d421ca and the sorry history that led up to it.
I think you could make it work as a fraction, though.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: