Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> Does we need random_bool to spread workload? It seems to me a useless, 
> because it also invokes one backend to use more pages instead of using 
> one which is already in buffer cache.I think that it should generate a 
> lot of extra i/o. Do not forget WAL full page write for firstime 
> modified page.

random_bool() is gone in the latest version of the patch, in favor of a 
"next pointer". You must be looking at an old version, and I must've 
forgotten to update the link in the Wiki. That change was discussed in 
the "New FSM allocation policy" thread.

Anyway, here's is the new version for your convenience, and I also added 
a paragraph to the README, mentioning that the tree is degenerated from 
the right.

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

• Re: New FSM patch at 2008-09-11 12:02:03 from Zdenek Kotala

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2008-09-11 12:20:30
	Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code
Previous:	From: Merlin Moncure	Date: 2008-09-11 12:10:23
	Subject: Re: Transaction Snapshots and Hot Standby