> > The plural seems better to me; there's no such thing as a solitary > > synchronized scan, no? The whole point of the feature is to affect > > the behavior of multiple scans. > > +1. The plural is important IMHO.
ok, good. > As I stated earlier, I don't really like this argument (we already > broke badly designed applications a few times in the past) but we > really need a way to guarantee that the execution of a query is stable > and doesn't depend on external factors. And the original problem was > to guarantee that pg_dump builds a dump as identical as possible to > the existing data by ignoring external factors. It's now the case with > your patch. > The fact that it allows us not to break existing applications relying > too much on physical ordering is a nice side effect though :). One more question. It would be possible that a session that turned off the synchronized_seqscans still be a pack leader for other later sessions. Do/should we consider that ? The procedure would be: start from page 0 iff no other pack is present fill the current scan position for others Andreas ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly