Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+4feqm7VsD=Hy0GY7Lc8CR8iMiSE-Zr_z1=CO8T2Yjiw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables  (John Naylor <john.naylor@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 10:18 AM John Naylor <john.naylor@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 4:17 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This one seems to be FSM test portability issue (due to different page
> > contents, maybe).  Looking into it, John, see if you are around and
> > have some thoughts on it.
>
> Maybe we can use the same plpgsql loop as fsm.sql that exits after 1
> tuple has inserted into the 5th page.
>

Yeah that can also work, but we still need to be careful about the
alignment of that one tuple, otherwise, there will could be different
free space on the fifth page.  The probably easier way could be to use
an even number of integers in the table say(int, int).  Anyway, for
now, I have avoided the dependency on FSM contents without losing on
coverage of test.  I have pushed my latest suggestion in the previous
email.


-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: ATTACH/DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY