On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2014-10-02 10:40:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com>
>> >> OK.
>> > Given that the results look good, do you plan to push this?
>> By "this", you mean the increase in the number of buffer mapping
>> partitions to 128, and a corresponding increase in MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS?
> Yes. Now that I think about it I wonder if we shouldn't define
> MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS like
> #define MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS (NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS + 64)
> or something like that?
Nah. That assumes NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS will always be the biggest
thing, and I don't see any reason to assume that, even if we're making
it true for now.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: