Hi, On 2019-04-08 03:40:52 +1200, David Rowley wrote: > On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 03:20, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > David Rowley <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > > The reason I thought it was a good idea to track some history there > > > was to stop the lock table constantly being shrunk back to the default > > > size every time a simple single table query was executed. > > > > I think that's probably gilding the lily, considering that this whole > > issue is pretty new. There's no evidence that expanding the local > > lock table is a significant drag on queries that need a lot of locks. > > Okay. Here's another version with all the average locks code removed > that only recreates the table when it's completely empty.
Could you benchmark your adversarial case? - Andres
