Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1L1pHDpcvYwbw7WveR14ea5RkRAmxXikpX-fGAQxEHN9w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch (John Naylor <john.naylor@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 11:43 AM John Naylor <john.naylor@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 4:57 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:39 PM John Naylor <john.naylor@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > > > Can you please test/review? > > There isn't enough time. But since I already wrote some debugging > calls earlier (attached), I gave it a brief spin, I found this patch > isn't as careful as HEAD making sure we don't try the same block twice > in a row. If you insert enough tuples into an empty table such that we > need to extend, you get something like this: > > DEBUG: Not enough space on block 0 > DEBUG: Now trying block 0 > DEBUG: Not enough space on block 0 > DEBUG: Updating local map for block 0 > > At this point, I'm sorry to say, but I'm in favor of reverting. > Fair enough. I think we have tried to come up with a patch for an alternative approach, but it needs time. I will revert this tomorrow. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: