On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 10:51 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 12:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > We could probably fix this specific issue by refactoring things in such
> > a way that the seqscan start point is frozen on the first read and
> > re-used after rewinds.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "frozen" exactly, but the start point of a
> synchronized scan is stored in shared memory; otherwise, it wouldn't
> know where to stop.
>
Correction: I didn't actually mean _shared_ memory there. It's just
backend-local memory.
Regards,Jeff Davis