Re: max_fsm_relations

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: "Gauthier, Dave" <dave(dot)gauthier(at)intel(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: max_fsm_relations
Date: 2009-02-27 19:56:50
Message-ID: 1235764610.1879.1.camel@jd-laptop.pragmaticzealot.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 12:37 -0700, Gauthier, Dave wrote:
> I just did a Vacuum Analyze on a DB. It worked OK, but I got...
>
>
>
>
>
> NOTICE: max_fsm_relations(1000) equals the number of relations checked
>
> HINT: You have at least 1000 relations. Consider increasing the
> configuration parameter “max_fsm_relations”
>
>
>
> I browsed around and learned that this has to do with keeping track of
> free disk space.
>
> Q: Is there a problem with leaving this alone? How serious is this if
> it is a problem?
>
> Q: Is there a way I can shrink this number (reload the data to consume
> the free space perhaps?)

This is "relations" which means tables, indexes etc... So unless you
start dropping things, no you can't reduce it.

Just increase it a bit (say 20%) it won't hurt you.

Note it does use a little shared_memory,.

Joshua D. Drake

>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> -dave
>
>
>
>
--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake(at)jabber(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bill Moran 2009-02-27 20:03:16 Re: max_fsm_relations
Previous Message Gauthier, Dave 2009-02-27 19:37:03 max_fsm_relations