Re: CLUSTER and synchronized scans and pg_dump et al

From: "Markus Bertheau" <mbertheau(dot)pg(at)googlemail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, "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: 2008-01-27 20:07:01
Message-ID: 684362e10801271207o54e6f2f1n93af228ae0ff6ca2@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2008/1/28, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>
> Do we have nominations for a name? The first idea that comes to mind
> is "synchronized_scanning" (defaulting to ON).

"synchronized_sequential_scans" is a bit long, but contains the
keyword "sequential scans", which will ring a bell with many, more so
than "synchronized_scanning".

Markus

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-01-27 20:07:29 Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable
Previous Message Gevik Babakhani 2008-01-27 19:54:21 MSVC Build error