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

Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>
Cc: 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: 2008-01-29 15:10:22
Message-ID: 20985.1201619422@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> writes:
> +1. If we go with 'enable_sync_seqcans' for 8.3, and in a future release 
> cycle we do test the cases Simon described above and we agree we need to 
> do a fine tune to benefit from this feature, we will need to deprecate 
> 'enable_sync_seqscans' and invent another one (sync_seqscans_threshold). 
> Looking at this perpective, IMHO we should go with the number (0.25) 
> instead of the boolean.

Surely the risk-of-needing-to-deprecate argument applies ten times more
strongly to a number than a boolean.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SDDate: 2008-01-29 15:37:34
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable
Previous:From: Kenneth MarshallDate: 2008-01-29 13:40:38
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanningGUCvariable

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SDDate: 2008-01-29 15:37:34
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2008-01-29 15:07:38
Subject: NUMERIC key word

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