Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On 06.04.2011 17:46, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I confess to not having been reading the discussions about SSI very
>> much, but ... do we actually care whether there's a free-for-all?
>> What's the downside to letting the remaining shmem get claimed by
>> whichever table uses it first?
> It's leads to odd behavior. You start the database, and your application
> runs fine. Then you restart the database, and now you get "out of shared
> memory" errors from transactions that used to work.
If you get "out of shared memory" at all due to SSI, I'd say that that's
the problem, not exactly when it happens. I thought that the patch
included provisions for falling back to coarser-grained locks whenever
it was short of resources.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
