| From: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Markus Bertheau <mbertheau(dot)pg(at)googlemail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2008-01-28 14:25:01 |
| Message-ID: | 479DE5BD.3080900@phlo.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Guillaume Smet wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2008 9:07 PM, Markus Bertheau
> <mbertheau(dot)pg(at)googlemail(dot)com> wrote:
>> 2008/1/28, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>>> Do we have nominations for a name? The first idea that comes to
>>> mind is "synchronized_scanning" (defaulting to ON).
>> "synchronized_sequential_scans" is a bit long, but contains the
>> keyword "sequential scans", which will ring a bell with many, more
>> so than "synchronized_scanning".
>
> synchronize_seqscans?
How about enable_syncscan, or enable_seqscan_sync? It's not strictly
something the influences the planner, but maybe it's similar enough to
justify a similar naming?
regards, Florian Pflug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guillaume Smet | 2008-01-28 14:33:16 | Re: CLUSTER and synchronized scans and pg_dump et al |
| Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2008-01-28 13:51:30 | Re: [PATCHES] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes |