On 2/9/19, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 3:25 PM John Naylor <john.naylor@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 4:04 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
> This is certainly a good test w.r.t code coverage of new code, but I
> have few comments:
> 1. The size of records in test still depends on alignment (MAXALIGN).
> Though it doesn't seem to be a problematic case, I still suggest we
> can avoid using records whose size depends on alignment. If you
> change the schema as CREATE TABLE fsm_check_size (num1 int, num2 int,
> str text);, then you can avoid alignment related issues for the
> records being used in test.
Done.
> 2.
> +-- Fill most of the last block
> ..
> +-- Make sure records can go into any block but the last one
> ..
> +-- Insert large record and make sure it does not cause the relation to
> extend
>
> The comments in some part of the test seems too focussed towards the
> algorithm used for in-memory map. I think we can keep these if we
> want, but it is required to write a more generic comment stating what
> is the actual motive of additional tests (basically we are testing the
> functionality of in-memory map (LSM) for the heap, so we should write
> about it.).
Done.
> Shall we add a note to the docs of pg_freespacemap and
> pgstattuple_approx indicating that for small relations, FSM won't be
> created, so these functions won't give appropriate value?
I've given this a try in 0002.
> Or other
> possibility could be that we return an error if the block number is
> less than the threshold value, but not sure if that is a good
> alternative as that can happen today also if the vacuum hasn't run on
> the table.
Yeah, an error doesn't seem helpful.
--
John Naylor https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
