Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
