On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I think we've had a number of pieces of evidence that suggest that
>> extending 8kB at a time is too costly, but I agree with Greg that the
>> idea of extending an arbitrarily large table by 10% at a time is
>> pretty frightening - that could involve allocating a gigantic amount
>> of space on a big table. I would be inclined to do something like
>> extend by 10% of table or 1MB, whichever is smaller.
> Sure, something like that sounds sane, though the precise numbers
> need some validation.
>> ... And a 1MB extension is probably also small enough
>> that we can do it in the foreground without too much of a hiccup.
> Less than convinced about this.
Well, I guess we can always try it and see.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Christopher Browne||Date: 2011-03-28 19:01:10|
|Subject: Re: BUG #5946: Long exclusive lock taken by vacuum (not full)|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-03-28 18:15:39|
|Subject: Re: BUG #5950: backend terminating after altering table |