Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> I was looking into supporting synchronized scans for VACUUM, and I
> noticed that we currently don't remove the reported scan location as
> this post suggests:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-06/msg00047.php
I thought the end conclusion of that thread was to not do anything,
on the grounds that
(1) having new scans sometimes fail to join an existing syncscan
herd would be a bad thing because of the resulting performance
uncertainty;
(2) partially masking the order-nondeterminism created by syncscans
would be a bad thing because it would make it more likely for people
to not notice the issue during testing.
regards, tom lane