David Rowley <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 12:42, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> My own thought about how to improve this situation was just to destroy
>> and recreate LockMethodLocalHash at transaction end (or start)
>> if its size exceeded $some-value. Leaving it permanently bloated seems
>> like possibly a bad idea, even if we get rid of all the hash_seq_searches
>> on it.
> That seems like a good idea. Although, it would be good to know that
> it didn't add too much overhead dropping and recreating the table when
> every transaction happened to obtain more locks than $some-value. If
> it did, then maybe we could track the average locks per of recent
> transactions and just ditch the table after the locks are released if
> the locks held by the last transaction exceeded the average *
> 1.something. No need to go near shared memory to do that.
Yeah, I'd deliberately avoided saying how we'd choose $some-value ;-).
Making it adaptive might not be a bad plan.
regards, tom lane
