| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 大塚憲司 <otsuka(dot)kenji(at)nttcom(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [DOCS] The number of bytes is stored in index_size of pgstatindex() ? |
| Date: | 2016-02-19 20:07:47 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQc3+Tk-xF-BkN2CwS-3OEuZMgCwQePJcDY3+yWbbcr5A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> But those pages are supposed to be used as the index grows. So unless
> they are forgotten by the FSM, they shouldn't accumulate. (Except where
> the table doesn't grow but only shrinks, so there's no need for new
> index pages, but I don't think that's an interesting case.)
Sure. I'm talking about a narrow issue around how things are
represented in pgstatindex() only.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Maciek Sakrejda | 2016-03-02 08:07:35 | Getting Started section |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-02-19 20:05:44 | Re: [DOCS] The number of bytes is stored in index_size of pgstatindex() ? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-02-19 20:08:40 | Re: pg_ctl promote wait |
| Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2016-02-19 20:06:11 | Re: Declarative partitioning |