From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Lowering the ever-growing heap->pd_lower |
Date: | 2022-04-08 16:44:12 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-WzkvQCNYXd0Qmzp+COrepYUX-r3iA0=97-tdUkUAeGgXPw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 4:38 AM Matthias van de Meent
<boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Yeah, I think we should definately support more line pointers on a
> heap page, but abusing MaxHeapTuplesPerPage for that is misleading:
> the current value is the physical limit for heap tuples, as we have at
> most 1 heap tuple per line pointer and thus the MaxHeapTuplesPerPage
> won't change. A macro MaxHeapLinePointersPerPage would probably be
> more useful, which could be as follows (assuming we don't want to
> allow filling a page with effectively only dead line pointers):
That's a good point. Sounds like it might be the right approach.
I suppose that it will depend on how much use of MaxHeapTuplesPerPage
remains once it is split in two like this.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM | 2022-04-08 16:52:23 | Re: How to simulate sync/async standbys being closer/farther (network distance) to primary in core postgres? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-04-08 16:36:08 | Re: pgsql: Add TAP test for archive_cleanup_command and recovery_end_comman |