| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at>, Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, 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: | 2008-01-30 18:15:32 |
| Message-ID: | 1201716932.4453.138.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 13:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at> writes:
> > One more question. It would be possible that a session that turned off
> > the synchronized_seqscans still be a pack leader for other later
> > sessions.
> > Do/should we consider that ?
>
> Seems like a reasonable thing to consider ... for 8.4.
Definitely. I thought about this the other day and decided it had some
strange behaviour in some circumstances, so wouldn't be desirable
overall.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-01-30 18:42:04 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-30 18:07:50 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-01-30 18:42:04 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-30 18:07:50 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable |