On Sat, 2008-05-31 at 22:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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) par
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
