On Nov 2, 2011, at 11:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > The following comment - or at least the last sentence thereof - > appears to be out of date. > > /* > * XXX Should we update the FSM information of this page ? > * > * There are two schools of thought here. We may not want to update FSM > * information so that the page is not used for unrelated > UPDATEs/INSERTs > * and any free space in this page will remain available for further > * UPDATEs in *this* page, thus improving chances for doing HOT > updates. > * > * But for a large table and where a page does not receive > further UPDATEs > * for a long time, we might waste this space by not updating the FSM > * information. The relation may get extended and fragmented further. > * > * One possibility is to leave "fillfactor" worth of space in this page > * and update FSM with the remaining space. > * > * In any case, the current FSM implementation doesn't accept > * one-page-at-a-time updates, so this is all academic for now. > */ > > The simple fix here is just to delete that last sentence, but does > anyone think we ought to do change the behavior, now that we have the > option to do so?
The fillfactor route seems to make the most sense here... it certainly seems to be the least surprising behavior. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect j...@nasby.net 512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
