| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
| 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: | 2008-01-28 04:22:23 |
| Message-ID: | 17505.1201494143@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> writes:
>> Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
>>> I think that's a bit too long. How about "synchronized_scans", or
>>> "synchronized_seqscans"?
> Would it make sense to match the plural as well?
Actually, the best suggestion I've seen so far is Guillaume's
"synchronize_seqscans" --- make it a verb phrase.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-28 04:27:15 | Re: pl/pgsql Plan Invalidation and search_path |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2008-01-28 04:11:04 | Re: pl/pgsql Plan Invalidation and search_path |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Russell Smith | 2008-01-28 06:27:46 | Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable |
| Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2008-01-28 04:09:57 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable |