On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 09:52:02AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas writes:
> >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Surely we could just prevent creation of the FSM until the table has
> >>> reached at least, say, 10
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Surely we could just prevent creation of the FSM until the table has
>>> reached at least, say, 10 blocks.
>>>
>>> Any threshold beyond one block would mean potential sp
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Surely we could just prevent creation of the FSM until the table has
>> reached at least, say, 10 blocks.
>>
>> Any threshold beyond one block would mean potential space wastage,
>> but it's hard to get excited about that
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
On the other hand, the problem of the FSM taking up 24kB for an 8kB
table seems clearly worth fixing, but I don't think I have the cycles
for it at present. Maybe a TODO is in order.
>
>> I certainly think that
Robert Haas writes:
>>> On the other hand, the problem of the FSM taking up 24kB for an 8kB
>>> table seems clearly worth fixing, but I don't think I have the cycles
>>> for it at present. Maybe a TODO is in order.
> I certainly think that'd be worth a TODO. Whether the rest of this is
> worth
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> A TODO for this?
You mean this part?
>> On the other hand, the problem of the FSM taking up 24kB for an 8kB
>> table seems clearly worth fixing, but I don't think I have the cycles
>> for it at present. Maybe a TODO is in order.
I certain
A TODO for this?
---
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 02:53:42PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Robert Haas:
> >
> >> I tried whacking out the call to GetPageWithFreeSpace() i
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 06, 2011 08:53:42 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> > * Robert Haas:
>> >> I tried whacking out the call to GetPageWithFreeSpace() in
>> >> RelationGetBufferForTuple(), and
On Tuesday, December 06, 2011 08:53:42 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Robert Haas:
> >> I tried whacking out the call to GetPageWithFreeSpace() in
> >> RelationGetBufferForTuple(), and also with the unpatched code, but the
> >> run-to-run random
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Robert Haas:
>
>> I tried whacking out the call to GetPageWithFreeSpace() in
>> RelationGetBufferForTuple(), and also with the unpatched code, but the
>> run-to-run randomness was way more than any difference the change
>> made. Is there a
* Robert Haas:
> I tried whacking out the call to GetPageWithFreeSpace() in
> RelationGetBufferForTuple(), and also with the unpatched code, but the
> run-to-run randomness was way more than any difference the change
> made. Is there a better test case?
I think that if you want to exercise file
On 30.11.2011 20:45, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
Yikes! A table with 4 bytes of useful data is consuming 40kB on disk
- 8kB in the main form, 8kB in the VM fork, and 24kB in the FSM fork.
Ouch!
Yeah, ouch. Why is the FSM fork eating so much space --- I'd have
expected 8k there, but
Robert Haas writes:
> Yikes! A table with 4 bytes of useful data is consuming 40kB on disk
> - 8kB in the main form, 8kB in the VM fork, and 24kB in the FSM fork.
> Ouch!
Yeah, ouch. Why is the FSM fork eating so much space --- I'd have
expected 8k there, but 24?
Also, if VACUUM is going to ca
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> I noticed that a bulk INSERT into an empty table (which has been
>>> TRUNCATEd in the same transaction, for good measure) results in a
>>> curious number of open
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> I noticed that a bulk INSERT into an empty table (which has been
>> TRUNCATEd in the same transaction, for good measure) results in a
>> curious number of open(2) calls for the FSM resource fork:
> That's kind of un
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I noticed that a bulk INSERT into an empty table (which has been
> TRUNCATEd in the same transaction, for good measure) results in a
> curious number of open(2) calls for the FSM resource fork:
That's kind of unfortunate. It looks like ev
16 matches
Mail list logo
