Re: Going, going, GUCs!

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Going, going, GUCs!
Date: 2009-10-20 18:25:51
Message-ID: 1256063151.31947.214.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 10:49 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> synchronize_seqscans (should be on)

Right now this is used for pg_dump, because pg_dump could un-cluster a
previously clustered table (I believe Greg Stark made this observation).
This is actually a stats/planner issue more than anything else, because
the table isn't _really_ unclustered, but it is still an issue (seems
minor to me, but not insignificant).

Also, it seems reasonable that testers might want to use something like
this, if they don't want to ORDER BY. For instance, if testing
postgresql itself, ORDER BY would change what you're testing.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-10-20 18:49:12 Re: Going, going, GUCs!
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2009-10-20 18:25:13 Re: Going, going, GUCs!