> > BTW, I found the answer to my question myself by reading the source
> > code: if that's an index, then blockfreebytes is explicitly set to 0.
> > I suggest that this should be noted in the README and in this case
> > blockfreebytes is better to set to NULL, rather than 0.
> >
>
> Good points! I had not noticed this test case. Probably NULL is better
> than zero.
Just for curiousity, why FSM gathers info for indexes? I thought FSM
is only good for tables.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
