Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1LOOY9PDvA0DX50N=bFZ9=8oe_MaRGbKVO7oUYj-eVNSw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables
Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 1:57 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > I think this test is going to break on nonstandard block sizes. While > we don't promise that all tests work on such installs (particularly > planner ones), > The reason for not pushing much on making the test pass for nonstandard block sizes is that when I tried existing tests, there were already some failures. For example, see the failures in the attached regression diff files (for block_size as 16K and 32K respectively). I saw those failures during the previous investigation, the situation on HEAD might or might not be exactly the same. Whereas I see the value in trying to make sure that tests pass for nonstandard block sizes, but that doesn't seem to be followed for all the tests. > it seems fairly easy to cope with this one -- just use a > record size expressed as a fraction of current_setting('block_size'). > So instead of "1024" you'd write current_setting('block_size') / 8. > And then display the relation size in terms of pages, not bytes, so > divide pg_relation_size by block size. > The idea sounds good. John, would you like to give it a try? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: