Re: CLOG contention, part 2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: CLOG contention, part 2
Date
Msg-id CA+U5nMLm7F9M1q4zkRCs3Zxhsdqd-nBKd9mpXL2pYrzHawpT2w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: CLOG contention, part 2  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: CLOG contention, part 2
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> D'oh.  You're right.  Looks like I accidentally tried to apply this to
>>>> the 9.1 sources.  Sigh...
>>>
>>> No worries. It's Friday.
>
> Server passed 'make check' with this patch, but when I tried to fire
> it up for some test runs, it fell over with:
>
> FATAL:  no more LWLockIds available
>
> I assume that it must be dependent on the config settings used.  Here are mine:
>
> shared_buffers = 8GB
> maintenance_work_mem = 1GB
> synchronous_commit = off
> checkpoint_segments = 300
> checkpoint_timeout = 15min
> checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9
> wal_writer_delay = 20ms

Yes, it was. Sorry about that. New version attached, retesting while
you read this.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY?
Next
From: Euler Taveira de Oliveira
Date:
Subject: Re: xlog location arithmetic