Tom lane wrote: > Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I think if we allow the lock manager to spill to disk (and I think we do > > need to allow it) then we should also be able to control the amount of > > shared memory allocated. > > You mean like max_locks_per_transaction?
IMO, max_locks_per_transaction could use a better name a little more documentation. I've mentioned this a couple of times before, but there is at least one type of lock that does not expire when the transaction ends (user locks). I may be over my head here, but I think lock spillover is dangerous. In the extreme situations where this would happen, it would be a real performance buster. Personally, I would rather see locks escalate when the table gets full, or at least allow this as a configuration parameter. Merlin ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly