| From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | 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 GUC variable |
| Date: | 2008-01-28 04:09:57 |
| Message-ID: | 690C8C70-E633-46C3-BE0C-36F455F08636@seespotcode.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Jan 27, 2008, at 21:04 , Tom Lane wrote:
> [ redirecting thread to -hackers ]
>
> Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
>> On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 21:54 +0000, Gregory Stark wrote:
>>> I liked the "synchronized_sequential_scans" idea myself.
>
>> I think that's a bit too long. How about "synchronized_scans", or
>> "synchronized_seqscans"?
>
> We have enable_seqscan already, so that last choice seems to fit in.
Would it make sense to match the plural as well?
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2008-01-28 04:11:04 | Re: pl/pgsql Plan Invalidation and search_path |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-28 03:45:13 | Re: pl/pgsql Plan Invalidation and search_path |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-28 04:22:23 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-28 02:04:03 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable |