Re: Thoughts about NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS
От | Japin Li |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Thoughts about NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS |
Дата | |
Msg-id | ME3P282MB3166E5DA8739A1A85EB0DADBB6512@ME3P282MB3166.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Thoughts about NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Thoughts about NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 at 00:56, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 2/18/24 03:30, Li Japin wrote: >> >> I find it seems need to change MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS if we enlarge the NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS, >> I didn’t find any comments to describe the relation between MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS and >> NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS, am I missing someghing? > > IMHO the relationship is pretty simple - MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS needs to be > higher than NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS, so that the backend can acquire all > the partition locks if needed. > Thanks for the explanation! Got it. > There's other places that acquire a bunch of locks, and all of them need > to be careful not to exceed MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS. For example gist has > GIST_MAX_SPLIT_PAGES. > > > regards
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: