On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:33:02AM +0100, Michael Riess wrote:
did you read my post? In the first part I explained why I don't want to increase the FSM that much.
Since you didn't quantify it, that wasn't much of a data point. (IOW, you'd generally have to be seriously resource constrained before the FSM would be a significant source of memory consumption--in which case more RAM would probably be a much better solution than screwing with autovacuum.) Mike Stone
