From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Autovacuum / full vacuum
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 07:08:05 -0500
Message-ID: <20060117120804.GU1408@mathom.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dqih4p$1clg$1@news.hub.org>
References: <dqigaf$1b98$1@news.hub.org>
<43CCC711.504@familyhealth.com.au>
<dqih4p$1clg$1@news.hub.org>
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:33:02AM +0100, Michael Riess wrote:
>did you read my post? In the first part I explained why I don't want to
>increase the FSM that much.
Since you didn't quantify it, that wasn't much of a data point. (IOW,
you'd generally have to be seriously resource constrained before the FSM
would be a significant source of memory consumption--in which case more
RAM would probably be a much better solution than screwing with
autovacuum.)
Mike Stone
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: mstone+postgres@mathom.us
Subject: Re: Autovacuum / full vacuum
In-Reply-To: <20060117120804.GU1408@mathom.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox