On 31.03.2011 16:31, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I've stared at the code for hours and have only come up with one
> race condition which can cause this, although the window is so small
> it's hard to believe that you would get this volume of orphaned
> locks. I'll keep looking, but if you could try this to see if it
> has a material impact, that would be great.
>
> I am very sure this patch is needed and that it is safe. It moves a
> LWLockAcquire statement up to cover the setup for the loop that it
> already covers. It also includes a fix to a comment that got missed
> when we switched from the pointer between lock targets to
> duplicating the locks.
Ok, committed.
Did we get anywhere with the sizing of the various shared memory
structures? Did we find the cause of the "out of shared memory" warnings?
Would it help if we just pre-allocated all the shared memory hash tables
and didn't allow them to grow? It's bizarre that the hash table that
requests the slack shared memory space first gets it, and it can't be
reused for anything else without a server restart. I feel it would make
better to not allow the tables to grow, so that you get consistent
behavior across restarts.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
