> So what's the problem? Increase max_locks_per_transaction. The reason
> we have that as a tunable is mainly to support systems with very large
> numbers of tables.
So increasing this value into the thousands is a reasonable approach?
If it is reasonable, that's fine. I'll certainly be increasing it
somewhat in any case.
It just feels more than a little extreme to be tweaking a parameter
which has the comment "32 has historically been enough" up by a factor
of 300 or more—extreme enough to make me wonder if there shouldn't be
some other solution for partitioning.
Are there any drawbacks one should be aware of when increasing
max_locks_per_transaction to such a huge value, besides the obvious
increase in shared memory requirements?
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: 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
