Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: idea for concurrent seqscans

From: William Volkman <wkvpsql(at)netshark(dot)com>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: idea for concurrent seqscans
Date: 2005-02-26 10:28:09
Message-ID: 1109413689.14897.8.camel@chrysalis.netshark.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 22:49, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 11:51:40PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> > >> but I also hate to burden the developers with rewriting a lot of
> > >> regression tests when their time could be better spent elsewhere.

The patch is for *concurrent* seqscans, would the regression tests
even be affected by this (IIRC they are single user, single process)?



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-02-26 12:08:16
Subject: Re: idea for concurrent seqscans
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2005-02-26 08:22:45
Subject: Re: idea for concurrent seqscans

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group