From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com>
cc: "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: How huge does mvtest_huge need to be?
In-reply-to: 
 <CACjxUsOwzk-J9VgsjR8cff8=QY8M2X8Vxc83_LhDbxjV2XRH-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <32386.1493831320@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CACjxUsOwzk-J9VgsjR8cff8=QY8M2X8Vxc83_LhDbxjV2XRH-A@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 03 May 2017 12:47:55 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <7280.1493842951.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 16:22:31 -0400
Message-ID: <7281.1493842951@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@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