Thanks, both Tom and Jim for the information. That's exactly what I
needed to know.
Jim-
We did in fact just increase the fsm values significantly based on the
feedback we were getting from the vacuum messages. We do nightly
non-full vacuums. Am I to understand that if we increase our fsm
allocation to a sufficient size, we should not be losing any space?
The "modern version" upgrade is on our wish list, but as it's a
production system incorporating many technologies, we've had
priorities elsewhere for a while, and 7.4 has been so darn stable and
productive that the only motivation to move forward is so I don't have
to feel ashamed to admit how far back we are. On the bright side, it's
an indication of how good postgresql is that a growing business has
had no issues with a quite old version.
Regards,
-Nick
On 8/8/07, Decibel! <decibel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 12:07:14PM -0400, Nick Fankhauser wrote:
> > 2) If a regular (non-full) vacuum will not reset the XID. Will a
> > dump/restore take care of wraparound? We have done this in the past for
> > space reclamation because we seem to be able to dump/restore more quickly
> > than we can do a full vacuum.
>
> If you're doing that you need to re-evaluate your vacuuming strategy and
> possibly your free space map settings. You should normally never need to
> use pg_dump(all) or vacuum full to reclaim space.
>
> If you've got the ability to take enough downtime to dump and restore,
> you should really use that opportunity to upgrade to a modern version,
> too.
> --
> Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel@xxxxxxxxxxx
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
>
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Fankhauser
nickf@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.doxpop.com
765.965.7363
765.962.9788 (Fax)
Doxpop - Public Records at Your Fingertips.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
