> > So maybe we should make table_block_relation_estimate_size smarter to > also consider the fillfactor in the "no statistics" branch, per the > attached patch. >
I like this a lot. The reasoning is obvious, the fix is simple,it doesn't upset any make-check-world tests, and in order to get a performance regression we'd need a table whose fillfactor has been changed after the data was loaded but before an analyze happens, and that's a narrow enough case to accept. My only nitpick is to swap (usable_bytes_per_page * fillfactor / 100) / tuple_width with (usable_bytes_per_page * fillfactor) / (tuple_width * 100) as this will eliminate the extra remainder truncation, and it also gets the arguments "in order" algebraically.
