On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 5:31 AM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote: >> >> FWIW, this is definitely a real possibility in any shop that has very high downtime costs and high transaction rates. >> >> I also think some kind of clamp is a good idea. It's not that uncommon to run max_connections significantly higher than 100, so the extension could be way larger than 16MB. In those cases this patch could actually make things far worse as everyone backs up waiting on the OS to extend many MB when all you actually needed were a couple dozen more pages. > > > I agree, We can have some max limit on number of extra pages, What other thinks ? > > >> >> BTW, how was *20 arrived at? ISTM that if you have a lot of concurrent demand for extension that means you're running lots of small DML operations, not really big ones. I'd think that would make *1 more appropriate. > > > *1 will not solve this problem, Here the main problem was many people are sleep/wakeup on the extension lock and that was causing the bottleneck. So if we do *1 this will satisfy only current requesters which has already waited on the lock. But our goal is to avoid backends from requesting this lock. > > Idea of Finding the requester to get the statistics on this locks (load on the lock) and extend in multiple of load so that in future this situation will be avoided for long time and again when happen next time extend in multiple of load. > > How 20 comes ? > I tested with Multiple clients loads 1..64, with multiple load size 4 byte records to 1KB Records, COPY/ INSERT and found 20 works best. >
Can you post the numbers for 1, 5, 10, 15, 25 or whatever other multiplier you have tried, so that it is clear that 20 is best? With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
