Re: [HACKERS] heap_page_prune comments

2012-08-16 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 12:27:02PM -0400, 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 appears to be out of date.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

Re: [HACKERS] heap_page_prune comments

2011-11-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Now, heap_page_prune is in a slightly different place, because it > doesn't actually know whether the current backend is going to make an > insertion or update in the page.  If it did know that was going to > happen, then the analogy would be exact

Re: [HACKERS] heap_page_prune comments

2011-11-04 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> IIRC, this code is following the very longstanding precedent of >> RelationGetBufferForTuple. > I don't understand the analogy - that function isn't freeing any > space, just searching for a block that already has some. A

Re: [HACKERS] heap_page_prune comments

2011-11-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> Seems a little hackish, though: we'd be reporting an amount of >> freespace that we've deliberately set to an incorrect value.  I'm >> almost thinking we should report the freespace that's actually >> available, on the theo

Re: [HACKERS] heap_page_prune comments

2011-11-04 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > Seems a little hackish, though: we'd be reporting an amount of > freespace that we've deliberately set to an incorrect value. I'm > almost thinking we should report the freespace that's actually > available, on the theory that Bload Is Bad (TM). IIRC, this code is following

Re: [HACKERS] heap_page_prune comments

2011-11-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > 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 appears to be out of date.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 ? >>         * >>  

Re: [HACKERS] heap_page_prune comments

2011-11-03 Thread Jim Nasby
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 appears to be out of date.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

[HACKERS] heap_page_prune comments

2011-11-02 Thread Robert Haas
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 pag