From: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Interaction between Free Space Map an alternate location |
Date: | 2004-11-18 19:46:41 |
Message-ID: | 419CFC21.3080402@fastcrypt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Ok, so the global part of the fsm is just that it is in shared memory.
If certain databases have more
free space they will simply take up more of the fsm. There is no cross
database movement of tuples.
( I realized this when I tried to form my next question)
Dave
Tom Lane wrote:
>Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> writes:
>
>
>>Can someone explain how the free space map deals with alternate database
>>locations?
>>
>>
>
>It doesn't really care. It identifies tables by database OID+table OID,
>and where they happen to sit physically doesn't matter.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
>
>
>
--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sean Chittenden | 2004-11-18 21:10:28 | Re: memcached and PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-11-18 19:29:31 | Re: Timing of pgstats updates |