Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I was looking into supporting synchronized scans for VACUUM, and I > noticed that we currently don't remove the reported scan location as > this post suggests:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-06/msg00047.php I thought the end conclusion of that thread was to not do anything, on the grounds that (1) having new scans sometimes fail to join an existing syncscan herd would be a bad thing because of the resulting performance uncertainty; (2) partially masking the order-nondeterminism created by syncscans would be a bad thing because it would make it more likely for people to not notice the issue during testing. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
