Re: max_fsm_relations
От | Gauthier, Dave |
---|---|
Тема | Re: max_fsm_relations |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 482E80323A35A54498B8B70FF2B8798003ED1B99A0@azsmsx504.amr.corp.intel.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: max_fsm_relations (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
For the time being, I dropped a few tables in a scratch DB that I was experimenting with. I just reran the app that gaveme the messages before and this time no messages. Tonight, I'll cycle the DB with the new fsm value. Thanks for all the help! (BTW, just have to say that the help I get here is faster and better than what we used to pay for from Oracle) -dave -----Original Message----- From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 4:53 PM To: Bill Moran Cc: Gauthier, Dave; pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] max_fsm_relations Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> writes: > In response to "Gauthier, Dave" <dave.gauthier@intel.com>: >> There is no way I have 1000 tables/indexes. But maybe it's counting table/index file extensions in the mix? What's themetadata query to see these 1000 relations? > Are you counting tables, indexes, sequences, pg_toast tables, system tables? I think sequences don't count here, but toast tables and system catalogs surely do. Also, as you said, it's the total across all databases in the installation that counts. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: