Re: CLUSTER and synchronized scans and pg_dump et al

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers list" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CLUSTER and synchronized scans and pg_dump et al
Date: 2008-01-27 18:37:29
Message-ID: 26831.1201459049@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Maybe a GUC variable to enable/disable syncscan?

> If so, it seems like a good idea even if it's just for debugging purposes.

Do we have nominations for a name? The first idea that comes to mind
is "synchronized_scanning" (defaulting to ON).

Also, does anyone object to making pg_dump just disable it
unconditionally? Greg's original gripe only mentioned the case of
clustered tables, but it'd be kind of a pain to make pg_dump turn it
on and off again for different tables. And I could see people
complaining about pg_dump failing to preserve row order even in
unclustered tables.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Guillaume Smet 2008-01-27 19:15:37 Re: CLUSTER and synchronized scans and pg_dump et al
Previous Message Guillaume Smet 2008-01-27 18:22:57 Re: CLUSTER and synchronized scans and pg_dump et al