Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I think we've had a number of pieces of evidence that suggest that
> extending 8kB at a time is too costly, but I agree with Greg that the
> idea of extending an arbitrarily large table by 10% at a time is
> pretty frightening - that could involve allocating a gigantic amount
> of space on a big table. I would be inclined to do something like
> extend by 10% of table or 1MB, whichever is smaller.
Sure, something like that sounds sane, though the precise numbers
need some validation.
> ... And a 1MB extension is probably also small enough
> that we can do it in the foreground without too much of a hiccup.
Less than convinced about this.
regards, tom lane