On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 2:02 PM John Naylor <john.naylor@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:37 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 8:11 PM John Naylor <john.naylor@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's probably a good idea to limit risk. I just very basic tests
> > > now, and vacuum before every relation size check to make sure any FSM
> > > extension (whether desired or not) is invoked. Also, in my last patch
> > > I forgot to implement explicit checks of the block number instead of
> > > assuming how many rows will fit on a page. I've used a plpgsql code
> > > block to do this.
> > >
> >
> > -- Extend table with enough blocks to exceed the FSM threshold
> > -- FSM is created and extended to 3 blocks
> >
> > The second comment line seems redundant to me, so I have removed that
> > and integrated it in the main patch.
>
> FYI, the second comment is still present in v20.
>
oops, forgot to include in commit after making a change, done now.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
