Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2016-08-31 12:53:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Improving on the space wastage is exactly the point IMO. If it's still
> > going to be 8k per sequence on disk (*and* in shared buffers, remember),
> > I'm not sure it's worth all the work to change things at all.
>
> A separate file is a heck lot more heavyweight than another 8 kb in an
> existing file.
Yes, sure, we're still improving even if we stick to one-seq-per-bufpage,
but while we're at it, we could as well find a way to make it as best as
we can. And allowing multiple seqs per page seems a much better
situation, so let's try to get there.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services