> > +1. If we go with 'enable_sync_seqcans' for 8.3, and in a future release > > cycle we do test the cases Simon described above and we agree we need to > > do a fine tune to benefit from this feature, we will need to deprecate > > 'enable_sync_seqscans' and invent another one (sync_seqscans_threshold). > > Looking at this perpective, IMHO we should go with the number (0.25)
> > instead of the boolean. > > Surely the risk-of-needing-to-deprecate argument applies ten times more > strongly to a number than a boolean. Yes, I would expect the tuning to be more system than user specific. So imho a boolean userset would couple well with a tuning guc, that may usefully not be userset (if we later discover a need for tuning at all). so +1 for the bool. synchronize[d]_seqscan sounds a bit better in my ears than the plural synchronize_seqscans. To me the latter somehow suggests influece on the whole cluster, probably not worth further discussion though, so if someone says no, ok. Andreas ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
