On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 2:12 PM John Naylor <john.nay...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:41 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:41 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > The modified page.sql test could fail if the block size is more than > > > 8kB? > > > > That's right, but I don't think current regression tests will work for > > block size greater than 8KB. I have tried with 16 and 32 as block > > size, there were few failures on the head itself. > > > > > We can ensure the number of pages are more than 4 by checking it > > > and adding more data if no enough but I'm really not sure we should > > > care the bigger-block size cases. > > > > > > > Yeah, I am not sure either. I think as this is an existing test, we > > should not try to change it too much. However, if both you and John > > feel it is better to change, we can go with that. > > I have an idea -- instead of adding a bunch of records and hoping that > the relation size and free space is consistent across platforms, how > about we revert to the original test input, and add a BRIN index? That > should have a FSM even with one record. >
Why would BRIN index allow having FSM for heap relation? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
