On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 21:50 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > Presumably we would not store an FSM for small tables? On the basis that > > the purpose of the FSM is to save on pointless I/O there must be a size > > of table below which an FSM is just overhead. > > Hmm, do you mean that we would open and verify every page of a small > relation until we find one with free space? That doesn't sound very > good.
I was trying to guess at Heikki's reason for saying the FSM should be in a separate file. If we have one extra file per table that seems like a huge number of additional files, with space and fsync implications. Let's wait and see what Heikki's answer is. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
