Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> Here's a new version, all known issues are now fixed. I'm now happy with
>> this patch.
>> Next, I'll start looking at the latest version of Jeff's synchronized
>> scans patch.
>
> I'm a bit confused --- weren't you intending to review these in parallel
> because of the possible interactions? Do you think this should be
> applied now, or does it need to wait to see what happens with Jeff's
> patch?
I think it should be applied now. I've briefly looked at Jeff's patch
and I don't see any problems looming there.
Jeff performed tests with Simon's original patch and his patch, and I
think the results from those tests are still valid since the basic
behavior hasn't been changed. I'll repeat those tests myself, and run
some more to see if the added CPU overhead shows up in tests, but I'm
pretty confident the patches will work together as advertised.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com