Bruce Momjian wrote:
Should I add a TODO to warn if FSM values are too small? Is that doable?
It sounds like it should be, and it would be a valuable pointer to
people, so yep.
Any idea who'd be interested in claiming it?
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
---(end of b
Justin Clift wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Should I add a TODO to warn if FSM values are too small? Is that doable?
>
> It sounds like it should be, and it would be a valuable pointer to
> people, so yep.
>
> Any idea who'd be interested in claiming it?
Turns out it was already on the TODO
Should I add a TODO to warn if FSM values are too small? Is that doable?
---
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> Moved to -hackers where this belongs :)
>
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Justin Clift wrote:
>
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >>
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 11/4/2004 5:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> autovacuum would probably be a reasonable place to put it. We don't
>> currently have any good way for autovacuum to get at the information,
>> but I suppose that an integrated autovacuum daemon could do so.
> Don't
On 11/4/2004 5:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Moved to -hackers where this belongs :)
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Justin Clift wrote:
Would making max_fsm_relations and max_fsm_pages dynamically update
themselves whilst PostgreSQL runs be useful?
Possibly, but it is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Treat wrote:
| On Friday 05 November 2004 07:48, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
|
|>Neil Conway wrote:
|> > Gaetano Mendola wrote:
|> >> Right but we can create a new segment and use it too. I don't know how
|> >> these segments are used but I used to do
Neil Conway wrote:
> Gaetano Mendola wrote:
>
>> Right but we can create a new segment and use it too. I don't know how
>> these segments are used but I used to do it in the past, of course you
>> have
>> to create a memory manager that handle not ccntinuous segments.
>
>
> The TelegraphCQ folks ha
Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Right but we can create a new segment and use it too. I don't know how
these segments are used but I used to do it in the past, of course you have
to create a memory manager that handle not ccntinuous segments.
The TelegraphCQ folks have already done this:
http://archives.p
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Moved to -hackers where this belongs :)
>
>
>>On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Justin Clift wrote:
>>
>>>Would making max_fsm_relations and max_fsm_pages dynamically update
>>>themselves whilst PostgreSQL runs be useful?
>
>
> Possibly, but it
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm not sure if I like this one too much ... but it would be nice if
something like this triggered a warning in the logs, maybe a feature of
pg_autovacuum itself?
autovacuum would probably be a reasonable place to put it. We don't
currently have any good way for
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> Moved to -hackers where this belongs :)
>
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Justin Clift wrote:
>
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >> Yup. 2 < 23072, so you're losing some proportion of FSM entries.
> >> What's worse, the FSM relation table is maxed out (1000 = 10
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Moved to -hackers where this belongs :)
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Justin Clift wrote:
>> Would making max_fsm_relations and max_fsm_pages dynamically update
>> themselves whilst PostgreSQL runs be useful?
Possibly, but it isn't happening in the forese
Moved to -hackers where this belongs :)
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Justin Clift wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Yup. 2 < 23072, so you're losing some proportion of FSM entries.
What's worse, the FSM relation table is maxed out (1000 = 1000) which
suggests that there are relations not being tracked at all; you
13 matches
Mail list logo
