From: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables |
Date: | 2019-01-23 15:48:28 |
Message-ID: | CACPNZCsDoP6O_iPSyOJ0ZRD9Cyj+x0JH8u=ekNHb1tLQCH1GSw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 7:09 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think the first two patches (a) removal of dead code in bootstrap
> and (b) the core patch to avoid creation of FSM file for the small
> table are good now. I have prepared the patches along with commit
> message. There is no change except for some changes in README and
> commit message of the second patch. Kindly let me know what you think
> about them?
Good to hear! The additional language is fine. In "Once the FSM is
created for heap", I would just change that to "...for a heap".
> I think these two patches can go even without the upgrade patch
> (during pg_upgrade, conditionally skip transfer of FSMs.) which is
> still under discussion. However, I am not in a hurry if you or other
> thinks that upgrade patch must be committed along with the second
> patch. I think the upgrade patch is generally going on track but
> might need some more review.
The pg_upgrade piece is a nice-to-have feature and not essential, so
can go in later. Additional review is also welcome.
--
John Naylor https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-01-23 16:10:47 | Re: postgres on a non-journaling filesystem |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2019-01-23 15:44:58 | Re: pg_dump multi VALUES INSERT |