Horton

Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable

Michael Glaesemann <grzm@seespotcode.net>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Glaesemann <grzm@seespotcode.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>, Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>, "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Date: 2008-01-28T04:09:57Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Jan 27, 2008, at 21:04 , Tom Lane wrote:

> [ redirecting thread to -hackers ]
>
> Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
>> On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 21:54 +0000, Gregory Stark wrote:
>>> I liked the "synchronized_sequential_scans" idea myself.
>
>> I think that's a bit too long. How about "synchronized_scans", or
>> "synchronized_seqscans"?
>
> We have enable_seqscan already, so that last choice seems to fit in.

Would it make sense to match the plural as well?

Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net