Re: FSM - per database or per installation?

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FSM - per database or per installation?
Date: 2009-12-24 03:32:47
Message-ID: 4B32E0DF.40503@postnewspapers.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 20/11/2009 2:33 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Craig James wrote:
>> Are the FSM parameters for each database, or the entire Postgres
>> system? In other words, if I have 100 databases, do I need to increase
>> max_fsm_pages and max_fsm_relations by a factor of 100, or keep them the
>> same as if I just have one database?
>>
>> I suspect they're per-database, i.e. as I add databases, I don't have to
>> increase the FSM parameters, but the documentation isn't 100% clear on
>> this point.
>
> It's per cluster, ie *not* per-database.
>
> The parameter is gone in 8.4, BTW.

See:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/release-8-4.html#AEN95067

for why they've been removed, which boils down to "PostgreSQL manages
the fsm automatically now and no longer requires all that RAM to do it,
either".

Thanks Heikki - the fsm _really_ simplify admin and remove a bunch of
common gotchas for Pg users.

--
Craig Ringer

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Ruf 2009-12-24 09:38:21 Optimizer use of index slows down query by factor
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-12-24 02:07:15 Re: FSM - per database or per installation?