Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable

> > +1. If we go with 'enable_sync_seqcans' for 8.3, and in a future
release
> > cycle we do test the cases Simon described above and we agree we
need to
> > do a fine tune to benefit from this feature, we will need to
deprecate
> > 'enable_sync_seqscans' and invent another one
(sync_seqscans_threshold).
> > Looking at this perpective, IMHO we should go with the number (0.25)

> > instead of the boolean.
>
> Surely the risk-of-needing-to-deprecate argument applies ten times
more
> strongly to a number than a boolean.

Yes, I would expect the tuning to be more system than user specific.
So imho a boolean userset would couple well with a tuning guc, that
may usefully not be userset (if we later discover a need for tuning at
all).

so +1 for the bool.

synchronize[d]_seqscan sounds a bit better in my ears than the plural
synchronize_seqscans.
To me the latter somehow suggests influece on the whole cluster,
probably not
worth further discussion though, so if someone says no, ok.

Andreas