On Sat, 2008-05-31 at 22:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
Ok, I certainly am not pushing for this patch to be applied. I'll
consider it closed.
Regards,
Jeff Davis