Hi Tom,
>What PG version is that? I recall we fixed a problem recently that
>caused the requested max_fsm_pages to increase some more when you'd
>increased it to what the message said.
8.1.4
As Vivek suggested, we are implementing more regular vacuuming.
Thanks!
Susan
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed May 23 10:01:07 2007
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-25) on borise.harvard.edu
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,SPF_HELO_PASS
autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.4
X-Spam-Level:
To: Susan Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] does VACUUM ANALYZE complete with this error?
Comments: In-reply-to Susan Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
message dated "Wed, 23 May 2007 09:26:54 -0400"
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 10:01:06 -0400
From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Susan Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We're seeing these type of error messages:
> NOTICE: number of page slots needed (237120) exceeds max_fsm_pages (120000)
> HINT: Consider increasing the configuration parameter "max_fsm_pages" to a
> value over 237120.
> vacuumdb: vacuuming database "fb_2007_01_17"
> I've played 'catch up' wrt adjusting max_fsm_pages (seems to be a regular
> event),
What PG version is that? I recall we fixed a problem recently that
caused the requested max_fsm_pages to increase some more when you'd
increased it to what the message said.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
