Re: Going, going, GUCs! - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: Going, going, GUCs!
Date
Msg-id 1256063151.31947.214.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Going, going, GUCs!  (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>)
Responses Re: Going, going, GUCs!
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 10:49 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> synchronize_seqscans (should be on)

Right now this is used for pg_dump, because pg_dump could un-cluster a
previously clustered table (I believe Greg Stark made this observation).
This is actually a stats/planner issue more than anything else, because
the table isn't _really_ unclustered, but it is still an issue (seems
minor to me, but not insignificant).

Also, it seems reasonable that testers might want to use something like
this, if they don't want to ORDER BY. For instance, if testing
postgresql itself, ORDER BY would change what you're testing.

Regards,Jeff Davis



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: Going, going, GUCs!
Next
From: Zdenek Kotala
Date:
Subject: Re: postgres 8.3.8 and Solaris 10_x86 64 bit problems?