Tom lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au> 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