On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 9:45 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alexander Korotkov <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> writes: > > Thus, I would vote for removing GiST fillfactor altogether. Assuming > > we can't do this for compatibility reasons, I would vote for setting > > default GiST fillfactor to 100, and don't introduce new places where > > we take it into account. > > We probably can't remove the fillfactor storage parameter, both for > backwards compatibility and because I think it's implemented independently > of index type. But there's no backwards-compatibility argument against > simply ignoring it, if we conclude it's a bad idea.
That's a good idea. Especially if we take into account that fillfactor is not a forever bad idea for GIST, it just doesn't look reasonable for current building algorithm. So, we can decide to ignore it, but if we would switch to different GiST building algorithm, which can pack pages tightly, we can take fillfactor into account again. I think I need to prove my position about GiST fillfactor with some experiments first, and then propose a patch. ------ Alexander Korotkov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company