On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:29 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:42 AM John Naylor <jcnay...@gmail.com> wrote: > > A case could be made for setting the threshold to 4, since not having > > 3 blocks of FSM in shared buffers exactly makes up for the 3 other > > blocks of heap that are checked when free space runs out. > > That doesn't seem like an unreasonable argument. I'm not sure whether > the right threshold is 4 or something a little bigger, but I bet it's > not very large. It seems important to me that before anybody thinks > about committing this, we construct some kind of destruction case > where repeated scans of the whole table are triggered as frequently as > possible, and then run that test with varying thresholds. >
Why do you think repeated scans will be a destruction case when there is no FSM for a small table? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
