Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com> wrote:
>> MAX_RESOWNER_LOCKS - How did you arrive at number 10 for it. Is there any
>> specific reason for 10.
> I instrumented the code to record the maximum number of locks held by
> a resource owner, and report the max when it was destroyed. (That
> code is not in this patch). During a large pg_dump, the vast majority
> of the resource owners had maximum locks of 2, with some more at 4
> and 6. Then there was one resource owner, for the top-level
> transaction, at tens or hundreds of thousands (basically one for every
> lockable object). There was little between 6 and this top-level
> number, so I thought 10 was a good compromise, safely above 6 but not
> so large that searching through the list itself was likely to bog
> down.
> Also, Tom independently suggested the same number.
FYI, I had likewise suggested 10 on the basis of examining pg_dump's
behavior. It might be a good idea to examine a few other use-cases
before settling on a value.
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
