Horton

Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>, Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>, Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>, "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2008-01-29T15:10:22Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com> writes:
> +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.

			regards, tom lane