Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> We have recently seen one definite and one probable report of overflow
> of the nLocks field of a backend's local lock table:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2008-09/msg00021.php
> ...
> Comments, objections?
In that case the problem could have been postponed by making nlocks unsigned.
Not much point in that I guess.
Alternatively perhaps we could indicate when taking a lock that we intend to
hold the lock until the end of the transaction. In that case we don't need the
usage counter at all and could just mark it with a special value which we
never increment or decrement just wait until we release all locks at the end
of transaction?
-- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support!
