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 (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers