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: Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(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, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable
Date: 2008-01-29 22:03:41
Message-ID: 26480.1201644221@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> Or is someone prepared to argue that there are no applications out
> there that will be broken if the same query, against the same unchanging
> table, yields different results from one trial to the next? 
> 
> Won't even autovacuum "analyze" cause this too if the
> new stats changes the plan?

Given that the table is unchanging, that's moderately unlikely to happen
(especially for "select * from foo" ;-))

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-01-29 22:24:35
Subject: Re: Large pgstat.stat file causes I/O storm
Previous:From: Ron MayerDate: 2008-01-29 21:59:05
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Stephen DenneDate: 2008-01-29 22:33:39
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanningGUCvariable
Previous:From: Ron MayerDate: 2008-01-29 21:59:05
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable

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