| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable |
| Date: | 2008-01-30 17:22:28 |
| Message-ID: | 14071.1201713748@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I'm still not very happy with any of the options here.
> BAS is great if you didn't want to trash the cache, but its also
> annoying to people that really did want to load a large table into
> cache. However we set it, we're going to have problems because not
> everybody has the same database.
That argument leads immediately to the conclusion that you need
per-table control over the behavior. Which maybe you do, but it's
far too late to be proposing it for 8.3. We should put this whole
area of more-control-over-BAS-and-syncscan on the TODO agenda.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-30 17:41:47 | Re: Will PostgreSQL get ported to CUDA? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-30 17:19:22 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-01-30 17:46:19 | Truncate Triggers |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-01-30 17:22:20 | Bitmap index scan preread using posix_fadvise (Was: There's random access and then there's random access) |