"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > If my back-of-the-envelope math is right, a carefully constructed > pessimal load could need up to (max_connections / 2)^2 -- so 100 > connections could conceivably require 2500 structures, although > such a scenario would be hard to create. Current "picked from > thin air" numbers would have space for 500. Er, actually, we would have space for 5000, because it's five times the number of SERIALIZABLEXACT structures which is ten times max_connections. I guess that would explain why I've never seen a report of a problem. Still, someone who creates a very large number of connections and pounds them heavily with SERIALIZABLE transactions might conceivably run into it. Since that's something the docs explicitly warn you *not* to do with serializable transactions, I'm not sure we need to do more than make sure the error message and hint are good. Thoughts? -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
