On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Robins Tharakan <thara...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Fabrizio. > > Although parallel_schedule was a miss for this specific patch, however, I > guess I seem to have missed out serial_schedule completely (in all patches) > and then thanks for pointing this out. Subsequently Robert too noticed the > miss at the serial_schedule end.
Why does serial_schedule even exist? Couldn't we just run the parallel schedule serially, like what happens when MAX_CONNECTIONS=1? Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
