Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily
Date
Msg-id 20180911152929.7xo4qgb3eyz6djfu@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2018-09-11 16:23:44 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> It's hard to see how any reasonable workload would affect the standby. And
> if it did, you'd change the parameter and restart, just like you already
> have to do if someone changes max_connections on master first.

Isn't one of the most common ways to run into "out of shared memory"
"You might need to increase max_locks_per_transaction." to run pg_dump?
And that's pretty commonly done against standbys?

Greetings,

Andres Freund


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily