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

Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
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 GUC variable
Date: 2008-01-30 17:22:28
Message-ID: 14071.1201713748@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I'm still not very happy with any of the options here.

> BAS is great if you didn't want to trash the cache, but its also
> annoying to people that really did want to load a large table into
> cache. However we set it, we're going to have problems because not
> everybody has the same database.

That argument leads immediately to the conclusion that you need
per-table control over the behavior.  Which maybe you do, but it's
far too late to be proposing it for 8.3.  We should put this whole
area of more-control-over-BAS-and-syncscan on the TODO agenda.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-01-30 17:41:47
Subject: Re: Will PostgreSQL get ported to CUDA?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-01-30 17:19:22
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2008-01-30 17:46:19
Subject: Truncate Triggers
Previous:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2008-01-30 17:22:20
Subject: Bitmap index scan preread using posix_fadvise (Was: There's random access and then there's random access)

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