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

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: jcnaylor(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables
Date: 2018-12-07 03:51:07
Message-ID: CAA4eK1LZjO9avTk+wBjL1nPbhCTxdHFRKv6=0-s0y64AnAMUjg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 10:53 PM John Naylor <jcnaylor(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I've added an additional regression test for finding the right block
> and removed a test I thought was redundant. I've kept the test file in
> its own schedule.
>

+# ----------
+# fsm does a vacuum, and running it in parallel seems to prevent heap
truncation.
+# ----------
+test: fsm
+

It is not clear to me from the comment why running it in parallel
prevents heap truncation, can you explain what behavior are you seeing
and what makes you think that running it in parallel caused it?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrey Lepikhov 2018-12-07 04:52:12 Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2018-12-07 03:27:27 Re: zheap: a new storage format for PostgreSQL