| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Eng" <eng(at)intranet(dot)greenplum(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: old synchronized scan patch |
| Date: | 2006-12-06 19:55:48 |
| Message-ID: | 1165434949.3839.429.camel@silverbirch.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 11:46 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> If you make the join/leave operations such that there is no resistance
> at all (no timeout or anything), then it becomes the same as my non-
> synchronized proposal, right?
Teamwork requires some synchronisation to be effective, but yeh there
needs to be a way to leave the Conga if its not working for you/them.
I think we need the synchronisation to make concurrent scans effective,
plus Brownian Scans doesnt have the same ring to it :-)
I'm still willing to help if you're willing to take this further.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-06 20:12:54 | Re: old synchronized scan patch |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-12-06 19:48:53 | Re: psql return codes |