Hi,
On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 01:32:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "wangw.f...@fujitsu.com" writes:
> > On Tues, Apr 4, 2023 at 23:48 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I like the "per eligible process" wording, at least for guc_tables.c;
> >> or maybe it could be "per server process"? That would be more
> >
On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 1:32 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> "wangw.f...@fujitsu.com" writes:
> > On Tues, Apr 4, 2023 at 23:48 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I like the "per eligible process" wording, at least for guc_tables.c;
> >> or maybe it could be "per server process"? That would be more
> >> accurate and
"wangw.f...@fujitsu.com" writes:
> On Tues, Apr 4, 2023 at 23:48 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> I like the "per eligible process" wording, at least for guc_tables.c;
>> or maybe it could be "per server process"? That would be more
>> accurate and not much longer than what we have now.
> Thanks both for
On Tues, Apr 4, 2023 at 23:48 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart writes:
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 12:40:07PM +, wangw.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> >> After some rethinking, I think users can easily get exact value according
> >> to
> >> exact formula, and I think using accurate formula can
Nathan Bossart writes:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 12:40:07PM +, wangw.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
>> After some rethinking, I think users can easily get exact value according to
>> exact formula, and I think using accurate formula can help users adjust
>> max_locks_per_transaction or max_predicate_
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 12:40:07PM +, wangw.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 8:37 AM Nathan Bossart
> wrote:
>> So, even with your patch applied, I don't think the formulas are correct.
>> I don't know if it's worth writing out the exact formula, though. It
>> doesn't seem t
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 8:37 AM Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 08:16:43AM +, wangw.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > When I refer to the GUC "max_locks_per_transaction", I find that the
> description
> > of the shared lock table size in pg-doc[1] is inconsistent with the code
> > (g
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 08:16:43AM +, wangw.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> When I refer to the GUC "max_locks_per_transaction", I find that the
> description
> of the shared lock table size in pg-doc[1] is inconsistent with the code
> (guc_table.c). BTW, the GUC "max_predicate_locks_per_xact" has s
Hi,
When I refer to the GUC "max_locks_per_transaction", I find that the description
of the shared lock table size in pg-doc[1] is inconsistent with the code
(guc_table.c). BTW, the GUC "max_predicate_locks_per_xact" has similar problems.
I think the descriptions in pg-doc are correct.
- GUC "max
