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

Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
Date: 2008-01-28 01:34:27
Message-ID: 1201484067.1204.102.camel@goldbach (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 21:54 +0000, Gregory Stark wrote:
> I liked the "synchronized_sequential_scans" idea myself.

I think that's a bit too long. How about "synchronized_scans", or
"synchronized_seqscans"?

-Neil



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-01-28 02:04:03
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-01-28 01:09:10
Subject: SSL connections don't cope with server crash very well at all

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-01-28 02:04:03
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-01-28 00:37:42
Subject: Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable

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