Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables

From: John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: 2019-01-31 15:47:53
Message-ID: CACPNZCsccAZs-VVLi4ZNtCe4mQP46xQgmo9_rgjMVmpXcW_E7g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 4:06 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I don't think that moving fsm tests to brin would be a good approach.
> We want to have a separate test for each access method. I think if we
> want to do something to avoid portability issues, maybe we can do what
> Masahiko San has just suggested.

We could also use the same plpgsql loop as in fsm.sql to check the ctid, right?

> OTOH, I think we are just good w.r.t
> this issue with the last patch I sent. I think unless we see some
> problem here, we should put energy into having a reproducible test for
> the fourth problem mentioned in my mail up thread [1]. Do you think
> it makes sense to run make check in loop for multiple times or do you
> have any idea how we can have a reproducible test?

Okay. Earlier I tried running make installcheck with
force_parallel_mode='regress', but didn't get a failure. I may not
have run enough times, though. I'll have to think about how to induce
it.

--
John Naylor https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-01-31 15:54:58 Re: MERGE SQL statement for PG12
Previous Message Dmitry Dolgov 2019-01-31 15:45:26 Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting