Re: non-HOT update not looking at FSM for large tuple update

From: John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Floris Van Nee <florisvannee(at)optiver(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: non-HOT update not looking at FSM for large tuple update
Date: 2021-02-26 11:14:18
Message-ID: CAFBsxsGcUzQv_g1CqA_wrJhtSVcDeTyaZeJqT_-cwqYq2-QZYQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 6:29 PM Floris Van Nee <florisvannee(at)optiver(dot)com>
wrote:
>
>
> > That makes sense, although the exact number seems precisely tailored to
your use case. 2% gives 164 bytes of slack and doesn't seem too large.
Updated patch attached.
>
> Yeah, I tried picking it as conservative as I could, but 2% is obviously
great too. :-) I can't think of any large drawbacks either of having a
slightly larger value.
> Thanks for posting the patch!

I've added this to the commitfest as a bug fix and added you as an author.

--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2021-02-26 11:14:56 Re: Add --tablespace option to reindexdb
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2021-02-26 11:04:55 Re: Optimising latch signals