| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgstattuple documentation clarification |
| Date: | 2016-12-23 12:53:35 |
| Message-ID: | 6b515dcd-b55f-e13e-e8e7-7d65138a33fd@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/21/2016 09:04 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Yes, I agree. In any case, before we change anything can we agree on a
> description of what we currently do?
>
> Here's a second attempt:
>
> The table_len will always be greater than the sum of the tuple_len,
> dead_tuple_len and free_space. The difference is accounted for by
> fixed page overhead, the per-page table of pointers to tuples, and
> padding to ensure that tuples are correctly aligned.
>
In the absence of further comment I will proceed along these lines.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Anastasia Lubennikova | 2016-12-23 13:12:22 | Re: Parallel Index Scans |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2016-12-23 12:48:39 | Re: Logical decoding on standby |