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

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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: 2019-05-07 16:19:05
Message-ID: 20190507161905.dyloz54yjurujjt5@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2019-05-07 12:12:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Why do you think there's no limit? We ordinarily do
> RelationGetNumberOfBlocks at least once per query on a table

Well, for the main fork. Which already could have shrunk below the size
that led the FSM to be created. And we only do
RelationGetNumberOfBlocks() when planning, right? Not when using
prepared statements.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2019-05-07 16:27:08 Re: Typos and wording in jsonpath-exec.c
Previous Message Andres Freund 2019-05-07 16:17:11 Re: REINDEX INDEX results in a crash for an index of pg_class since 9.6