Re: Synchronized Scan update - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: Synchronized Scan update
Date
Msg-id 1172876630.13722.226.camel@dogma.v10.wvs
Whole thread Raw
In response to Synchronized Scan update  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
Responses Re: Synchronized Scan update  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Re: Synchronized Scan update  ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: Synchronized Scan update  ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Is there any consensus about whether to include these two parameters as
GUCs or constants if my patch is to be accepted?

(1) sync_scan_threshold: Use synchronized scanning for tables greater
than this many pages; smaller tables will not be affected.
(2) sync_scan_offset: Start a new scan this many pages before a
currently running scan to take advantage of the pagesthat are likely already in cache.

Right now they are just constants defined in a header, but a GUC might
make sense. I'd like to know which version is more acceptable when I
submit my final patch.

Regards,Jeff Davis



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Removing some of the old VC++ stuff
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: SE-Linux/PostgreSQL work?