[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       postgresql-general
Subject:    Re: [GENERAL] max_fsm_relations
From:       "Gauthier, Dave" <dave.gauthier () intel ! com>
Date:       2009-02-27 22:04:59
Message-ID: 482E80323A35A54498B8B70FF2B8798003ED1B99A0 () azsmsx504 ! amr ! corp ! intel ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

For the time being, I dropped a few tables in a scratch DB that I was experimenting \
with.  I just reran the app that gave me 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 the metadata 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

-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]