bench on community
PostgreSQL.
Thank you
From: Jeremy Schneider
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 6:19 PM
To: Fred Habash
Cc: pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Guideline To Resolve LWLock:SubtransControlLock
On 8/17/18 11:07, Fred Habash wrote:
> Aurora Postgres 9
, August 20, 2018 6:19 PM
To: Fred Habash
Cc: pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Guideline To Resolve LWLock:SubtransControlLock
On 8/17/18 11:07, Fred Habash wrote:
> Aurora Postgres 9.6.3
Hi Fred! The Amazon team does watch the AWS forums and that's the place
to raise questi
On 2018-Aug-20, Fred Habash wrote:
> How do we go about calculating appropriate values for these two parameters ...
I don't know a lot about your system, so don't have anything to go on.
Also, Aurora is mostly unknown to me. What did Amazon say?
> > 'NUM_SUBTRANS_BUFFERS'?
> TOTAL_MAX_CACHED_SU
Thanks.
How do we go about calculating appropriate values for these two parameters ...
> 'NUM_SUBTRANS_BUFFERS'?
TOTAL_MAX_CACHED_SUBXIDS
And do both require a recompile?
-
Thank you.
On Aug 17, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> And as for the recompile, are you thinking 'NUM
On 2018-Aug-17, Fred Habash wrote:
> Aurora Postgres 9.6.3
Oh, okay, I don't know this one. Did you contact Amazon support?
> So, no chance to recompile (AFAIK).
> Is there a design anti-pattern at the schema or data access level that we
> should look for and correct?
Maybe ...
> And as for t
Aurora Postgres 9.6.3
So, no chance to recompile (AFAIK).
Is there a design anti-pattern at the schema or data access level that we
should look for and correct?
And as for the recompile, are you thinking 'NUM_SUBTRANS_BUFFERS'?
Thanks
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>
On 2018-Aug-16, Fred Habash wrote:
> One of our database API's is run concurrently by near 40 sessions. We see
> all of them waiting back and forth on this wait state.
What version are you running?
> Why is it called Subtrans Control Lock?
It controls access to the pg_subtrans structure, which
