Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2016-08-31 12:53:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Improving on the space wastage is exactly the point IMO. If it's still > > going to be 8k per sequence on disk (*and* in shared buffers, remember), > > I'm not sure it's worth all the work to change things at all. > > A separate file is a heck lot more heavyweight than another 8 kb in an > existing file.
Yes, sure, we're still improving even if we stick to one-seq-per-bufpage, but while we're at it, we could as well find a way to make it as best as we can. And allowing multiple seqs per page seems a much better situation, so let's try to get there. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers