| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, 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 GUCvariable |
| Date: | 2008-01-29 15:10:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20985.1201619422@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> writes:
> +1. If we go with 'enable_sync_seqcans' for 8.3, and in a future release
> cycle we do test the cases Simon described above and we agree we need to
> do a fine tune to benefit from this feature, we will need to deprecate
> 'enable_sync_seqscans' and invent another one (sync_seqscans_threshold).
> Looking at this perpective, IMHO we should go with the number (0.25)
> instead of the boolean.
Surely the risk-of-needing-to-deprecate argument applies ten times more
strongly to a number than a boolean.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD | 2008-01-29 15:37:34 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable |
| Previous Message | Kenneth Marshall | 2008-01-29 13:40:38 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD | 2008-01-29 15:37:34 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-01-29 15:07:38 | NUMERIC key word |