Re: Lock partitions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Mark Wong
Subject Re: Lock partitions
Date
Msg-id 45365C30.9000008@osdl.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Lock partitions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Lock partitions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Wong <markw@osdl.org> writes:
>> The number of transaction errors increased when I increased the 
>> NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS, which I think is the reason it failed to run when I 
>> set it to 16.
> 
> Hmm, what sort of errors are we talking about?  I wonder if you've
> exposed a bug.  Changing NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS really shouldn't have any
> semantic effect.

The libpq client (error log: 
http://dbt.osdl.org/dbt/dbt2dev/results/dev4-015/180/client/error.log) 
is saying things like this:

ERROR:  too many LWLocks taken
CONTEXT:  SQL statement "DELETE FROM new_order
WHERE no_o_id = 2101  AND no_w_id = 349  AND no_d_id = 1"

A grep through that file shows that all the unexpected errors appear to 
be due to "too many LWLocks taken".

Mark



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Lock partitions
Next
From: "Simon Riggs"
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_internal.init is hazardous to your health