X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3496D3A4DBB; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:03:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 93564-04; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:03:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (candle.pha.pa.us [207.106.42.251]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 011613A4DCE; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:03:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.11.6) id iAT23sk04399; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:03:54 -0500 (EST) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200411290203.iAT23sk04399@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ... In-Reply-To: <20041104182322.D21566@ganymede.hub.org> To: "Marc G. Fournier" Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:03:54 -0500 (EST) Cc: Justin Clift , Tom Lane , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL108 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200411/1050 X-Sequence-Number: 61622 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: > > > >> Yup. 20000 < 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 have > >> no idea how much space is getting leaked in those. > >> > >> You can determine the number of relations potentially needing FSM > >> entries by > >> select count(*) from pg_class where relkind in ('r','i','t'); > >> --- sum over all databases in the cluster to get the right result. > >> > >> Once you've fixed max_fsm_relations, do vacuums in all databases, and > >> then vacuum verbose should give you a usable lower bound for > >> max_fsm_pages. > > > > Would making max_fsm_relations and max_fsm_pages dynamically update > > themselves whilst PostgreSQL runs be useful? Sounds like they're the > > kind of things that many people would receive maximum benefit if > > PostgreSQL altered these settings as needed itself. > > 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? > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073