From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Amit Kapila <akapila@postgresql.org>
cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Avoid creation of the free space map for small heap
 relations, t
In-reply-to: <32368.1551114120@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <E1gqTuL-0004Wj-U7@gemulon.postgresql.org>
 <32368.1551114120@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:02:00 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <648.1551116668.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:44:28 -0500
Message-ID: <649.1551116668@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

I wrote:
> Amit Kapila <akapila@postgresql.org> writes:
>> Avoid creation of the free space map for small heap relations, take 2.

> I think this patch still has some issues.

Just out of curiosity ... how can it possibly be even a little bit sane
that fsm_local_map is a single static data structure, without even any
indication of which table it is for?

If, somehow, there's a rational argument for that design, why is it
not explained in freespace.c?  The most charitable interpretation of
what I see there is that it's fatally undercommented.

			regards, tom lane