| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New FSM patch |
| Date: | 2008-09-18 18:57:34 |
| Message-ID: | 48D2A49E.8050800@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I did a bit of testing and immediately got an Assert failure:
>
> ...
>
> The scary part of that is that it gets through the regression tests ---
> doesn't leave one with a warm feeling about how much of VACUUM gets
> exercised by regression.
Ouch..
> I take it the comment at the top of indexfsm.c about using one bit per
> page should be recast as a possible future improvement?
Yep. I also noted that the code in GetIndexFreeSpace() didn't match the
comment above it.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2008-09-18 19:05:50 | Re: FSM patch - performance test |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-09-18 18:53:13 | Re: New FSM patch |