Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 27 November 2017 at 05:53, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Well, let's not overthink this, because anything under 8K is going to
>> be rounded up to the next power of 2 anyway by aset.c. Based on this
>> point I'd say that BLCKSZ/2 or BLCKSZ/4 would be reasonable candidates
>> for the minimum.
> BLCKSZ/2 seems best then.
Sold, will make it so.
> I guess that means palloc doesn't work well with BLCKSZ > 8192
Don't think it's particularly related.
regards, tom lane