| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable |
| Date: | 2008-01-28 06:54:24 |
| Message-ID: | 1201503264.1204.140.camel@goldbach |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 17:27 +1100, Russell Smith wrote:
> Can somebody explain why it's important to load with
> synchronized_scanning off?
*Loading* with synchronized scanning off is not important (and is not
implemented by the patch).
*Dumping* with synchronized scanning off is necessary to ensure that the
order of the rows in the pg_dump matches the on-disk order of the rows
in the table, which is important if you want to preserve the clustering
of the table data on restore.
See the -hackers thread:
http://markmail.org/message/qbytsco6oj2qkxsa
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guillaume Smet | 2008-01-28 06:55:16 | Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable |
| Previous Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2008-01-28 06:48:52 | Re: Vacuum threshold and non-serializable read-only transaction |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guillaume Smet | 2008-01-28 06:55:16 | Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable |
| Previous Message | Russell Smith | 2008-01-28 06:27:46 | Re: Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable |