| From: | "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Markus Bertheau" <mbertheau(dot)pg(at)googlemail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers list" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CLUSTER and synchronized scans and pg_dump et al |
| Date: | 2008-01-28 14:33:16 |
| Message-ID: | 1d4e0c10801280633r130df565h8861831c3ebff900@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Florian,
Glad to see you back!
On Jan 28, 2008 3:25 PM, Florian G. Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> wrote:
> How about enable_syncscan, or enable_seqscan_sync? It's not strictly
> something the influences the planner, but maybe it's similar enough to
> justify a similar naming?
It was my first idea but I didn't propose it as it's really a
different thing IMHO. enable_* variables don't change the way
PostgreSQL really does the job as synchronize_scans (or whatever the
name will be) does.
And it's not very consistent with the other GUC variables (most of
them could have "enable" in their name) but we limited the usage of
enable_* to planner variables. I don't know if it's on purpose though.
--
Guillaume
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2008-01-28 14:55:41 | Re: CLUSTER and synchronized scans and pg_dump et al |
| Previous Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2008-01-28 14:25:01 | Re: CLUSTER and synchronized scans and pg_dump et al |