Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable

From: Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, neilc(at)samurai(dot)com
Subject: Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
Date: 2008-01-28 08:59:18
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Guillaume Smet wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> On Jan 28, 2008 7:27 AM, Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
>> Can somebody explain why it's important to load with
>> synchronized_scanning off?
>> do_sql_command(g_conn, "SET synchronized_scanning TO off");
> It's the start point of this patch. See this thread [
> ]
> for more information
Sorry, total brain fade in interpreting the patch.

g_conn is our connection to the database, not the command we are dumping.



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2008-01-28 09:57:23
Subject: Re: RFC: array_agg() per SQL:200n
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2008-01-28 08:55:58
Subject: Re: SSL connections don't cope with server crash very well at all

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Dean RasheedDate: 2008-01-28 09:21:50
Subject: Auto-explain patch
Previous:From: Guillaume SmetDate: 2008-01-28 06:55:16
Subject: Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group