On 2017-06-05 11:23:43 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 06/05/2017 05:25 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi Heikki,
> > Do you see any better way to get at the !fpi len than to iterate over
> > the blocks and sum up the image length? It's not really accurate to
> > display len (rec/tot) as total-fpi, total, but I don't have a better
> > backward-compatible idea? Actually, I don't even have a better idea for
> > master, so maybe it's ok as proposed?
>
> Your patch seems OK to me. Defining non-FPI size as (total_len - fpi_len)
> seems correct to me, I'm not sure what other definition you could have.
I'm not sure, that's why I chose the above. But you could argue that
the block ids etc. shouldn't be counted as part of either, or that the
previous displaying of record len / total len doesn't make much sense
anymore.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
