Re: Synchronized Scan update

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Synchronized Scan update
Date: 2007-03-02 23:03:50
Message-ID: 1172876630.13722.226.camel@dogma.v10.wvs
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Is there any consensus about whether to include these two parameters as
GUCs or constants if my patch is to be accepted?

(1) sync_scan_threshold: Use synchronized scanning for tables greater
than this many pages; smaller tables will not be affected.
(2) sync_scan_offset: Start a new scan this many pages before a
currently running scan to take advantage of the pages
that are likely already in cache.

Right now they are just constants defined in a header, but a GUC might
make sense. I'd like to know which version is more acceptable when I
submit my final patch.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message FAST PostgreSQL 2007-03-02 23:13:10 Re: [PATCHES] WIP Patch - Updateable Cursors
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2007-03-02 22:58:19 Re: Removing some of the old VC++ stuff