From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, "Markus Bertheau" <mbertheau(dot)pg(at)googlemail(dot)com>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers list" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: CLUSTER and synchronized scans and pg_dump et al |
Date: | 2008-01-28 16:33:50 |
Message-ID: | 2967.1201538030@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> It was my first idea but I didn't propose it as it's really a
> different thing IMHO. enable_* variables don't change the way
> PostgreSQL really does the job as synchronize_scans (or whatever the
> name will be) does.
> And it's not very consistent with the other GUC variables (most of
> them could have "enable" in their name) but we limited the usage of
> enable_* to planner variables. I don't know if it's on purpose though.
Yeah, it is a more or less deliberate policy to use enable_ only for
planner control variables, which this one certainly isn't. I seem
to recall an argument also that prefixing enable_ is just noise; it
doesn't add anything to your understanding of what the variable does.
So far I think "synchronize_seqscans" is the best proposal.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-01-28 16:34:31 | Re: system catalog constraints question |
Previous Message | Gevik Babakhani | 2008-01-28 16:07:09 | system catalog constraints question |