thanks for you clarification about additional memory calculations: for
10k connections , 5625kB maybe fine. I justed looked through the
discussions about memory allocation "
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cba2406a-66bb-41ac-b1cf-bb898596e0e1%40vondra.me";,
I feel confused about the stat
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 at 18:23, James Pang wrote:
> not tested and any regression found either, with 10k connections, and
> "max_locks_per_transaction=128", it need about more than 1GB extra
> memory,right? per my understanding, max_locks_per_transaction is the max
> locked objects in a tr
not tested and any regression found either, with 10k connections, and
"max_locks_per_transaction=128", it need about more than 1GB extra
memory,right? per my understanding, max_locks_per_transaction is the max
locked objects in a transaction (that's not an average locked objects at
the same t
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 at 15:13, James Pang wrote:
> We are planning to database upgrade, and evaluate PGv18 as next new major
> version. Based on new release notes, one question about, "Improve the locking
> performance of queries that access many relations ".
> new share_lock_table size i
experts,
We are planning to database upgrade, and evaluate PGv18 as next new
major version. Based on new release notes, one question about, "Improve the
locking performance of queries that access many relations ".
new share_lock_table size is based on max_locks_per_transaction, our
producti
