Tom, Alvaro: Thank you much for the clarification. It's "back to the drawing board" for me!
Kynn On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Kynn Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm leaning towards the re-design option, primarily because I really > don't > > really understand the consequences of cranking up > max_locks_per_transaction. > > E.g. Why is its default value 2^6, instead of, say, 2^15? In fact, why > is > > there a ceiling on the number of locks at all? > > Because the size of the lock table in shared memory has to be set at > postmaster start. > > There are people running DBs with a couple hundred thousand tables, > but I don't know what sorts of performance problems they face when > they try to run pg_dump. I think most SQL experts would suggest > a redesign: if you have lots of essentially identical tables the > standard advice is to fold them all into one table with one more > key column. > > regards, tom lane >
