Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From John Naylor
Subject Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch
Date
Msg-id CACPNZCswrm0_yfkM-93zY0igZmTmi-0DsT1s0vHDzDa1fKMLEw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch
Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:52 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> As discussed above, we need to issue an
> invalidation for following points:  (a) when vacuum finds there is no
> FSM and page has more space now, I think you can detect this in
> RecordPageWithFreeSpace

I took a brief look and we'd have to know how much space was there
before. That doesn't seem possible without first implementing the idea
to save free space locally in the same way the FSM does. Even if we
have consensus on that, there's no code for it, and we're running out
of time.

> (b) invalidation to notify the existence of
> FSM, this can be done both by vacuum and backend.

I still don't claim to be anything but naive in this area, but does
the attached get us any closer?

-- 
John Naylor                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: generate documentation keywords table automatically
Next
From: Paul Guo
Date:
Subject: Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion)