Hi,
On 2019-04-08 03:40:52 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 03:20, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >
> > David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > > The reason I thought it was a good idea to track some history there
> > > was to stop the lock table constantly being shrunk back to the default
> > > size every time a simple single table query was executed.
> >
> > I think that's probably gilding the lily, considering that this whole
> > issue is pretty new. There's no evidence that expanding the local
> > lock table is a significant drag on queries that need a lot of locks.
>
> Okay. Here's another version with all the average locks code removed
> that only recreates the table when it's completely empty.
Could you benchmark your adversarial case?
- Andres
