| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Going, going, GUCs! |
| Date: | 2009-10-20 18:53:10 |
| Message-ID: | 3626.1256064790@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 10:49 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
>> synchronize_seqscans (should be on)
> Right now this is used for pg_dump, because pg_dump could un-cluster a
> previously clustered table (I believe Greg Stark made this observation).
In general, the setting results in producing indeterminate output where
previous versions produced deterministic results; we did get complaints
about that when it came out. Furthermore the performance gain may be
marginal or nonexistent depending on your application. The code savings
from removing the setting would certainly be marginal or nonexistent.
I can't see a good argument for taking this out.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bernd Helmle | 2009-10-20 18:55:23 | Re: Going, going, GUCs! |
| Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2009-10-20 18:49:15 | Re: postgres 8.3.8 and Solaris 10_x86 64 bit problems? |