Re: [pgsql-www] pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ...
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [pgsql-www] pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6789.1099608272@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [pgsql-www] pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ... ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: [pgsql-www] pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ...
Re: [pgsql-www] pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ... Re: [pgsql-www] pg_autovacuum is nice ... but ... |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.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. > I'm not sure if I like this one too much ... but it would be nice if > something like this triggered a warning in the logs, maybe a feature of > pg_autovacuum itself? autovacuum would probably be a reasonable place to put it. We don't currently have any good way for autovacuum to get at the information, but I suppose that an integrated autovacuum daemon could do so. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: