Instead of adding forcefsm, I think it would be more useful to accept a target block number. That way we can actually control where the new tuple goes. For this particular case we'd presumably go with normal FSM page selection logic, but someone could chose to to do something more sophisticated if they wanted.
I don't think specifying exact blocks will help, it will get us in more trouble in the long run.
I think we need to be able to specify these update placement strategies
* TARGBLOCK_SAME - try to put the update on the same block if possible - default
* TARGBLOCK_NEW - always force the update to go on a new block, to shrink table rapidly
and these new block selection strategies
* FSM_ANY - Any block from FSM - default, as now
* FSM_NEAR - A block near the current one to maintain clustering as much as possible - set automatically if table is clustered
* FSM_SHRINK - A block as near to block 0 as possible, while still handing out different blocks to each backend by reselecting a block if we experience write contention
I would suggest that if VACUUM finds the table is bloated beyond a specific threshold it automatically puts it in FSM_SHRINK mode, and resets it back to FSM_ANY once the bloat has reduced. That will naturally avoid bloat.
fsm modes can also be set manually to enforce bloat minimization.
We can also design a utility to actively use TARGBLOCK_NEW and FSM_SHRINK to reduce table size without blocking writes.
But this is all stuff for 9.6...
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
