| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| 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 15:18:29 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMK29jWExz52_3QoetJLmO1+Gz9__3SjZG=4P3nFh1qPJg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 11 May 2012 15:14, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On 11.05.2012 16:56, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> On 11 May 2012 11:07, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if we should reserve a few of the lwlock "slots" for critical
>>> sections, to make this less likely to happen. Not only in this case, but
>>> in
>>> general. We haven't seen this problem often, but it would be quite
>>> trivial
>>> to reserve a few slots.
>>
>>
>> Why reserve them solely for critical sections?
>
>
> Because if you run out of lwlocks in a critical section, you get a PANIC.
Yes, but why reserve them solely for critical sections? If you have an
escape hatch you use it, always
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-05-11 16:48:53 | Re: BUG #6629: Creating a gist index fails with "too many LWLocks taken" |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-11 14:43:43 | Re: BUG #6629: Creating a gist index fails with "too many LWLocks taken" |