Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: "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 11:25:45
Message-ID: E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57902B63227@m0143.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches


> >> 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.

Yes looks good, how about synchronized_seqscan without plural ?

Andreas

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zdenek Kotala 2008-01-28 12:16:12 Re: Proposal: Integrity check
Previous Message Florian Weimer 2008-01-28 10:37:03 Re: plperl: Documentation on BYTEA decoding is wrong

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2008-01-28 12:51:31 WIP: plpgsql source code obfuscation
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2008-01-28 09:25:51 Re: sinval contention reduction