| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mike Goldner <mgoldner(at)agmednet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum Problems (locking) |
| Date: | 2006-10-25 22:30:51 |
| Message-ID: | 5751.1161815451@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Mike Goldner <mgoldner(at)agmednet(dot)com> writes:
> First of all, my max_fsm_pages is obviously way off. However, every
> time I increase my max_fsm_pages the next vacuum says that it requires
> more. Will there every be a plateau in the requested pages?
We realized recently that this can happen if you have a single relation
that all by itself needs more FSM space than you've got; any per-table
space beyond max_fsm_pages is disregarded in the calculation of the
total system-wide space needed, and so you get this inflationary effect
where the reported requirement keeps going up when you increase the
setting. There's a fix in for 8.2.
> So, all indications point to postgres blocking all access during the
> entire vacuum.
You haven't said anything I consider credible evidence of that. But try
looking in pg_locks next time.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-25 22:49:48 | Re: CLUSTER using more memory than expected |
| Previous Message | Mike Goldner | 2006-10-25 20:00:29 | Re: Vacuum Problems (locking) |