From: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Sawada Masahiko <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 08:32:01 |
Message-ID: | CACPNZCtOE2VNSZz-30hAd6MC-hZbiTqMfdHLdP0QtY71D_-4ew@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:37 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:11 PM John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > That's probably a good idea to limit risk. I just very basic tests
> > now, and vacuum before every relation size check to make sure any FSM
> > extension (whether desired or not) is invoked. Also, in my last patch
> > I forgot to implement explicit checks of the block number instead of
> > assuming how many rows will fit on a page. I've used a plpgsql code
> > block to do this.
> >
>
> -- Extend table with enough blocks to exceed the FSM threshold
> -- FSM is created and extended to 3 blocks
>
> The second comment line seems redundant to me, so I have removed that
> and integrated it in the main patch.
FYI, the second comment is still present in v20.
--
John Naylor https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Naylor | 2019-01-31 08:41:56 | Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables |
Previous Message | Matsumura, Ryo | 2019-01-31 08:25:41 | RE: [PROPOSAL]a new data type 'bytea' for ECPG |