| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ryan Kelly <rpkelly22(at)gmail(dot)com>, tom Tom <tom(at)tomforb(dot)es>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #6629: Creating a gist index fails with "too many LWLocks taken" |
| Date: | 2012-05-11 14:19:25 |
| Message-ID: | 3642.1336745965@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 11.05.2012 16:52, Tom Lane wrote:
>> IMO, no part of the system should ever get within an order of magnitude
>> of holding 100 LWLocks concurrently.
> I agree we should never get anywhere near that limit. But if we do -
> because of another bug like this one - it would be nice if it was just
> an ERROR, instead of a PANIC.
By the time you hit that limit, you have already got a problem that
should never have gotten into the field, I think. Simon's idea of
logging a warning once we get beyond a sane number of LWLocks seems like
it might be helpful towards finding such problems earlier; though I'd
put the "sane" limit at maybe 20 or so. Perhaps it'd be useful to
measure what the max length of that list is during the regression tests.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-11 14:43:43 | Re: BUG #6629: Creating a gist index fails with "too many LWLocks taken" |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-11 14:19:06 | Re: BUG #6624: Tab completion of identifier containing single backslash triggers warnings |