Re: idea for concurrent seqscans

From: Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: idea for concurrent seqscans
Date: 2005-02-26 00:04:32
Message-ID: 1109376273.4089.169.camel@jeff
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 13:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org> writes:
> > I didn't consider that. Is there a reason the regression tests assume
> > the results will be returned in a certain order (or a consistent order)?
>
> We use diff as the checking tool.
>

Well, that does make testing more difficult, or it at least requires
extra work to make the regression tests understand the results better.

I'll sumbmit a better patch, and then if everyone decides it's worth the
hassle with the regression tests, we can use it in 8.1. Some more
testing is required to see if the results are really as good as we hope.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-02-26 00:11:30 Re: Modifying COPY TO
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-02-26 00:03:53 Re: idea for concurrent seqscans