Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2496E64FC46 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:41:58 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 88630-02 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:41:55 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: delayed 00:06:38.722566 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from ns1.peker.com.pl (ns1.peker.com.pl [62.121.85.181]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3A30A64FC02 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:41:55 -0400 (AST) Received: (qmail 10150 invoked by uid 540); 30 Nov 2008 05:51:38 -0000 Received: from 89.206.3.18 by ns1.peker.com.pl (envelope-from , uid 401) with qmail-scanner-1.25st (clamdscan: 0.82/760. spamassassin: 3.0.2. perlscan: 1.25st. Clear:RC:1(89.206.3.18):. Processed in 0.078415 secs); 30 Nov 2008 05:51:38 -0000 Received: from host18-89-206-3.limes.com.pl (HELO ?192.168.1.2?) (informatyka-adamr@89.206.3.18) by ns1.peker.com.pl with SMTP; 30 Nov 2008 05:51:37 -0000 Message-ID: <493225F2.1080307@informatyka.gdansk.pl> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 06:34:42 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Adam_Rad=B3owski?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: max_fsm_relations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200811/176 X-Sequence-Number: 30830 PostgreSQL 8.1.3 (windows), 8.1.9 - 8.1.10 (linux). I have databases, what are vacuumed using cron very regularry (vacuumdb -a -f ...) and I know when should do this. Automatic vacuuming is off. There are thousands of tables in one cluster (for ex. 10000). If I do vacuuming manually, I can see the warning: NOTICE: max_fsm_relations(1000) equals the number of relations checked HINT: You have at least 1000 relations. Consider increasing the configuration parameter "max_fsm_relations". But all is working properly. Do I need really to increase max_fsm_relations (and corresponding start values) for postgresql server ? If I should "to consider" only it looks, that it is not needed in my situation. I'm right ? Brgds Adam