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

Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable
Date: 2008-01-28 17:14:39
Message-ID: 1201540479.4257.737.camel@ebony.site (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 21:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> [ redirecting thread to -hackers ]
> 
> Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> > 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"?
> 
> We have enable_seqscan already, so that last choice seems to fit in.

If we're going to have a GUC, we may as well make it as useful as
possible.

Currently we set synch scan on when the table is larger than 25% of
shared_buffers. So increasing shared_buffers can actually turn this
feature off.

Rather than having a boolean GUC, we should have a number and make the
parameter "synchronised_scan_threshold". This would then be the size of
a table above which we would perform synch scans. If its set to -1, then
this would be the same as "off" in all cases. The default value would be
25% of shared_buffers. (Think we can only do that at initdb time
currently).

If we do that, its clearly different from the enable_* parameters, so
the name is easier to decide ;-)

-- 
  Simon Riggs
  2ndQuadrant  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2008-01-28 17:47:42
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add size/acl information when listing databases
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2008-01-28 17:03:42
Subject: Re: CLUSTER and synchronized scans and pg_dump et al

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2008-01-28 17:38:04
Subject: Re: WIP: plpgsql source code obfuscation
Previous:From: David FetterDate: 2008-01-28 17:07:46
Subject: Re: Auto-explain patch

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