[Bucardo-general] My locks overfloweth

[Greg Sabino Mullane]

On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:07:21AM -0400, Mitchell Perilstein wrote:
> Hi Greg,   We haven't tried that isolation level yet but we were
> using our preferred 'read uncommitted' for a while (yes we know it's
> supposed to be the same as 'read committed' in pg) and that didn't
> seem to affect the lock usage or the memory complaints versus
> serializable.

Hmmm... I think I meant "repeatable read". I need to revisit this 
when my brain is not fuzzy. I don't think we should have 
read_committed or read_uncommitted in there at all!
 
> But here's a bigger hint: we just discovered last night that
> reducing statement_chunk_size from 10000 to 1000 does have an
> impact.  It's been running overnight so far and the lock level is
> holding in the hundreds, which is fine.  This is with pg back at its
> defaults for max_pred_locks_per_transaction and
> max_locks_per_transaction and moderate load from our app hitting the
> db.

Interesting, thanks for the report.


-- 
Greg Sabino Mullane greg at endpoint.com
End Point Corporation
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://mail.endcrypt.com/pipermail/bucardo-general/attachments/20130415/304c0698/attachment.sig>