Re: idea for concurrent seqscans

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Cc: Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: idea for concurrent seqscans
Date: 2005-02-26 04:51:40
Message-ID: 18864.1109393500@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Jim C. Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
>> but I also hate to burden the developers with rewriting a lot of
>> regression tests when their time could be better spent elsewhere.

> Certainly, but I suspect it's just a matter of adding ORDER BY to
> everything, which just about anyone (even myself!) should be able to do.

Performance is not the issue; test coverage, however, is an issue.
See the comment at the end of
http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/regress-evaluation.html#AEN22383

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-02-26 05:49:59 Re: idea for concurrent seqscans
Previous Message Jeff Hoffmann 2005-02-26 04:48:39 Re: Development Plans