Kevin Grittner <> writes:
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Tom Lane <> wrote:
>> So ... is there a good reason to be using a large table here, and
>> if so what is it, and how big does the table really need to be
>> to provide useful test coverage?

> Hm.  This seems like a particularly useless size.  It would test a
> possibly useful corner case if it was over 10MB so that it was over
> vacuum's truncation threshold, but that would obviously be even
> slower.  It doesn't seem justified.  How about 500 so it at least
> goes to a second page which is then truncated to 1 page.

Yeah, that aspect occurred to me after a bit too.  I'll make it so.

> The "huge" in the object names then seems odd, of course.

Right ... will pick some other name.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to