| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Move syncscan.c? |
| Date: | 2020-07-29 05:04:15 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKG+0hsrrQECQOhtM1Cr_kiaA4SfV3=+aLzwTCG0d5j8b2A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 6:28 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2020-06-23 13:30:39 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > I suppose it's remotely possible that someone might invent
> > physical-order index scans, and once you have those you might sync
> > scans of those too, and then even table would be too specific, but
> > that may be a bit far fetched.
>
> Hm. That'd be an argument for moving it to access/common. I don't really
> see a reason not to go for that?
Ok, done that way. Thanks.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2020-07-29 05:16:15 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Sharma | 2020-07-29 04:37:49 | Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..." |