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

From: Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ...
Date: 2004-11-05 12:00:56
Message-ID: 418B6B78.7040107@bigfoot.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-www

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)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.

Right but we can create a new segment and use it too. I don't know how
these segments are used but I used to do it in the past, of course you have
to create a memory manager that handle not ccntinuous segments.
Of course this only if the effort to do it can justify the man power working
on it.

Regards
Gaetano Mendola

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Hansen 2004-11-05 12:09:58 unnest
Previous Message Gevik Babakhani 2004-11-05 10:49:31 use of IDE's an tools

Browse pgsql-www by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2004-11-05 12:33:06 Re: [pgsql-www] pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ...
Previous Message Marc G. Fournier 2004-11-05 02:19:12 Re: [pgsql-www] pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ...