Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUCvariable

Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> Or is someone prepared to argue that there are no applications out
> there that will be broken if the same query, against the same unchanging
> table, yields different results from one trial to the next? 
> 
> Won't even autovacuum "analyze" cause this too if the
> new stats changes the plan?

Given that the table is unchanging, that's moderately unlikely to happen
(especially for "select * from foo" ;-))
        regards, tom lane