> Merlin Moncure > > The name max_locks_per_transaction indicates a limit of some kind. The > > documentation doesn't mention anything about whether that limit is > > enforced > > or not. > > > > I suggest the additional wording: > > "This parameter is not a hard limit: No limit is enforced on the > number of > > locks in each transaction. System-wide, the total number of locks is > > limited > > by the size of the lock table." > > > I think it's worse than that. First of all, user locks persist outside > of transactions, but they apply to this limit.
I was really thinking of the standard locking case. Yes, user locks make it worse. > A more appropriate name > for the GUC variable would be 'estimated_lock_table_size_per_backend', > or something like that. I've been putting some thought into reworking > the userlock contrib module into something acceptable into the main > project, a substantial part of that being documentation changes. > I agree a renamed parameter would be more appropriate, though I suspect a more accurate name will be about 5 yards long. Documentation change would be worthwhile here... but I'll wait for your changes before doing anything there, Best Regards, Simon Riggs ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org