Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables
Date: 2019-03-12 02:52:23
Message-ID: CAA4eK1Jp8pa8B-BN3dLQmtwyChD+g=2YDr9rPkjqoz1qkBVN7A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 7:13 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 1:24 PM John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 9:27 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think this test is going to break on nonstandard block sizes. While
> > > we don't promise that all tests work on such installs (particularly
> > > planner ones), it seems fairly easy to cope with this one -- just use a
> > > record size expressed as a fraction of current_setting('block_size').
> > > So instead of "1024" you'd write current_setting('block_size') / 8.
> > > And then display the relation size in terms of pages, not bytes, so
> > > divide pg_relation_size by block size.
> >
> > I've done this for v6, tested on 16k block size.
> >
>
> Thanks, the patch looks good to me. I have additionally tested it 32K
> and 1K sized blocks and the test passes. I will commit this early
> next week.
>

Pushed this patch. Last time, we have seen a few portability issues
with this test. Both John and me with the help of others tried to
ensure that there are no more such issues, but there is always a
chance that we missed something. Anyway, I will keep an eye on
buildfarm to see if there is any problem related to this patch.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2019-03-12 02:53:30 Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2019-03-12 02:47:29 Re: Making all nbtree entries unique by having heap TIDs participate in comparisons