From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables |
Date: | 2019-03-07 13:43:18 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1L0kzxMXr7k=crHNOjKiP12pAZ32ghg40bzzeAZa2TYqw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 1:24 PM John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 9:27 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > I think this test is going to break on nonstandard block sizes. While
> > we don't promise that all tests work on such installs (particularly
> > planner ones), it seems fairly easy to cope with this one -- just use a
> > record size expressed as a fraction of current_setting('block_size').
> > So instead of "1024" you'd write current_setting('block_size') / 8.
> > And then display the relation size in terms of pages, not bytes, so
> > divide pg_relation_size by block size.
>
> I've done this for v6, tested on 16k block size.
>
Thanks, the patch looks good to me. I have additionally tested it 32K
and 1K sized blocks and the test passes. I will commit this early
next week.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-03-07 13:52:21 | Re: Pluggable Storage - Andres's take |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2019-03-07 13:40:32 | Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement |