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: Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <Andreas.Zeugswetter@s-itsolutions.at>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>, Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>, "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>
Date: 2008-01-29T22:03:41Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> Or is someone prepared to argue that there are no applications out
> there that will be broken if the same query, against the same unchanging
> table, yields different results from one trial to the next? 
> 
> Won't even autovacuum "analyze" cause this too if the
> new stats changes the plan?

Given that the table is unchanging, that's moderately unlikely to happen
(especially for "select * from foo" ;-))

			regards, tom lane