Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I'm still not very happy with any of the options here.

> BAS is great if you didn't want to trash the cache, but its also
> annoying to people that really did want to load a large table into
> cache. However we set it, we're going to have problems because not
> everybody has the same database.

That argument leads immediately to the conclusion that you need
per-table control over the behavior.  Which maybe you do, but it's
far too late to be proposing it for 8.3.  We should put this whole
area of more-control-over-BAS-and-syncscan on the TODO agenda.

			regards, tom lane