Re: [pgsql-www] pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ... - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [pgsql-www] pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ...
Date
Msg-id 6789.1099608272@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [pgsql-www] pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ...  ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>)
Responses Re: [pgsql-www] pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ...  ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>)
Re: [pgsql-www] pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ...  (Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>)
Re: [pgsql-www] pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ...  (Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ...
Next
From: Gavin Sherry
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ...