Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch
Date: 2019-05-06 16:05:21
Message-ID: 17158.1557158721@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> ... I guess you could incur the overhead repeatedly if the relation starts
> out at 1 block, grows to 4, is vacuumed back down to 1, lather, rinse,
> repeat, but is that actually realistic?

While I've not studied the patch, I assumed that once a relation has an
FSM it won't disappear. Making it go away again if the relation gets
shorter seems both fairly useless and a promising source of bugs.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-05-06 16:13:31 Re: pg_dump: fail to restore partition table with serial type
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-05-06 15:58:18 Re: make \d pg_toast.foo show its indices