From: | Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at> |
Cc: | Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(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 13:25:18 |
Message-ID: | 20080130132518.GS4201@it.is.rice.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 10:56:47AM +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
>
> > > The plural seems better to me; there's no such thing as a solitary
> > > synchronized scan, no? The whole point of the feature is to affect
> > > the behavior of multiple scans.
> >
> > +1. The plural is important IMHO.
>
> ok, good.
>
> > As I stated earlier, I don't really like this argument (we already
> > broke badly designed applications a few times in the past) but we
> > really need a way to guarantee that the execution of a query is stable
> > and doesn't depend on external factors. And the original problem was
> > to guarantee that pg_dump builds a dump as identical as possible to
> > the existing data by ignoring external factors. It's now the case with
> > your patch.
> > The fact that it allows us not to break existing applications relying
> > too much on physical ordering is a nice side effect though :).
>
> 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 ?
>
> The procedure would be:
> start from page 0
> iff no other pack is present fill the current scan position for others
>
I think that allowing other scans to use the scan started by a query that
disabled the sync scans would have value. It would prevent these types
of queries from completely tanking the I/O.
+1
Ken
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-01-30 16:00:37 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD | 2008-01-30 09:56:47 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-01-30 16:00:37 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD | 2008-01-30 09:56:47 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable |