Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

max_fsm_pages question

From: Michael Monnerie <michael(dot)monnerie(at)is(dot)it-management(dot)at>
To: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: max_fsm_pages question
Date: 2010-01-25 11:19:12
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-admin
I got this log on 8.3.9:

Jan 24 02:13:28 postgres[29696]: [3-1] DB= U= H= WARNING:  
relation "pg_toast.pg_toast_1910021" contains more than "max_fsm_pages" 
pages with useful free space
Jan 24 02:13:28 postgres[29696]: [3-2] DB= U= H= HINT:  
Consider using VACUUM FULL on this relation or increasing the 
configuration parameter "max_fsm_pages".
Jan 24 02:13:28 postgres[29696]: [4-1] DB= U= H= LOG:  
automatic vacuum of table "dbmail.pg_toast.pg_toast_1910021": index 
scans: 1
Jan 24 02:13:28 postgres[29696]: [4-2]      pages: 0 
removed, 740218 remain
Jan 24 02:13:28 postgres[29696]: [4-3]      tuples: 601310 
removed, 2397087 remain
Jan 24 02:13:28 postgres[29696]: [4-4]      system usage: 
CPU 5.73s/1.92u sec elapsed 835.67 sec

and I'd like to know
1) which db uses pg_toast.pg_toast_1910021? (Later I found it:) That 
should be dbmail, as it writes "dbmail.pg_toast.pg_toast_1910021" later 
on. But wouldn't it be good to log that directly? Making it easier for 
2) what table is using that toast?
3) why did postgres suddenly decide to remove the old cruft suddenly? 

Autovacuum is on, the nightly backups do an extra "vacuum analyze", and 
once a week a CLUSTER is done for the big tables. Maybe I missed one?

mit freundlichen Grüssen,
Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc

it-management Internet Services
Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31

// Wir haben zwei Häuser zu verkaufen:

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Julius TuskenisDate: 2010-01-25 12:23:09
Subject: how to speed ilike
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-01-22 18:03:40
Subject: Re: LC_COLLATE could cause a LOWER/UPPER/ILIKE malfunction?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group