On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2014-10-02 10:40:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> >> wrote: >> >> OK. >> > >> > Given that the results look good, do you plan to push this? >> >> By "this", you mean the increase in the number of buffer mapping >> partitions to 128, and a corresponding increase in MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS? > > Yes. Now that I think about it I wonder if we shouldn't define > MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS like > #define MAX_SIMUL_LWLOCKS (NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS + 64) > or something like that?
Nah. That assumes NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS will always be the biggest thing, and I don't see any reason to assume that, even if we're making it true for now. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
