Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On 11.05.2012 16:52, Tom Lane wrote:
>> IMO, no part of the system should ever get within an order of magnitude
>> of holding 100 LWLocks concurrently.
> I agree we should never get anywhere near that limit. But if we do -
> because of another bug like this one - it would be nice if it was just
> an ERROR, instead of a PANIC.
By the time you hit that limit, you have already got a problem that
should never have gotten into the field, I think. Simon's idea of
logging a warning once we get beyond a sane number of LWLocks seems like
it might be helpful towards finding such problems earlier; though I'd
put the "sane" limit at maybe 20 or so. Perhaps it'd be useful to
measure what the max length of that list is during the regression tests.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
