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

Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable

From: Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 21:59:05
Message-ID: 479FA1A9.1060200@cheapcomplexdevices.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>   
>> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> 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?


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-01-29 22:03:41
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable
Previous:From: Cristian GaftonDate: 2008-01-29 21:08:25
Subject: Re: Large pgstat.stat file causes I/O storm

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-01-29 22:03:41
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-01-29 21:00:49
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable

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