| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(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, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable |
| Date: | 2008-01-29 22:03:41 |
| Message-ID: | 26480.1201644221@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> Or is someone prepared to argue that there are no applications out
> there that will be broken if the same query, against the same unchanging
> table, yields different results from one trial to the next?
>
> Won't even autovacuum "analyze" cause this too if the
> new stats changes the plan?
Given that the table is unchanging, that's moderately unlikely to happen
(especially for "select * from foo" ;-))
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-29 22:24:35 | Re: Large pgstat.stat file causes I/O storm |
| Previous Message | Ron Mayer | 2008-01-29 21:59:05 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Denne | 2008-01-29 22:33:39 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanningGUCvariable |
| Previous Message | Ron Mayer | 2008-01-29 21:59:05 | Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable |