Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> I've applied this but I'm now having some second thoughts about it, >> because I'm seeing an actual *decrease* in pgbench numbers from the >> immediately prior CVS HEAD code.
> The attached patch requires the new row to fit, and 10% to be free on > the page. Would someone test that? At the moment, I cannot replicate any consistent difference between CVS head with the patch, without the patch, with the patch plus your BLCKSZ/10 limit addition, or with a variant BLCKSZ/32 limit addition. That's whether I use HEAD's broken version of pgbench or one from late July. So I'm feeling a tad frustrated ... but I have no evidence in favor of changing what is in CVS, and accordingly recommend that we leave well enough alone for 8.2. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq