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 3DC2B3A4920;
	Thu,  4 Nov 2004 22:44:44 +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 53568-10; Thu,  4 Nov 2004 22:44:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B8E63A4893;
	Thu,  4 Nov 2004 22:44:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iA4MiXMZ006790;
	Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:44:33 -0500 (EST)
To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
Cc: Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ... 
In-reply-to: <20041104182322.D21566@ganymede.hub.org> 
References: <20041103155855.O82047@ganymede.hub.org>
	<41895BDA.1090903@postgresql.org>
	<20041103201625.S82047@ganymede.hub.org>
	<19430.1099533223@sss.pgh.pa.us> <418AA915.7010903@postgresql.org>
	<20041104182322.D21566@ganymede.hub.org>
Comments: In-reply-to "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Thu, 04 Nov 2004 18:26:08 -0400"
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:44:32 -0500
Message-ID: <6789.1099608272@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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: 200411/150
X-Sequence-Number: 60722

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> 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 foreseeable future, for the same
reason that we don't auto-update shared_buffers and the other shared
memory sizing parameters: we can't resize shared memory on the fly.

> 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 autovacuum to get at the information,
but I suppose that an integrated autovacuum daemon could do so.

			regards, tom lane