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

Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: 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 06:54:24
Message-ID: 1201503264.1204.140.camel@goldbach (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 17:27 +1100, Russell Smith wrote:
> Can somebody explain why it's important to load with 
> synchronized_scanning off?

*Loading* with synchronized scanning off is not important (and is not
implemented by the patch).

*Dumping* with synchronized scanning off is necessary to ensure that the
order of the rows in the pg_dump matches the on-disk order of the rows
in the table, which is important if you want to preserve the clustering
of the table data on restore.

See the -hackers thread:

http://markmail.org/message/qbytsco6oj2qkxsa

-Neil



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Guillaume SmetDate: 2008-01-28 06:55:16
Subject: Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
Previous:From: ITAGAKI TakahiroDate: 2008-01-28 06:48:52
Subject: Re: Vacuum threshold and non-serializable read-only transaction

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Guillaume SmetDate: 2008-01-28 06:55:16
Subject: Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
Previous:From: Russell SmithDate: 2008-01-28 06:27:46
Subject: Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable

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