On 11.05.2012 16:56, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 11 May 2012 11:07, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakan...@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
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
