Re: Synchronized scans

"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

> The vacuum-cost-limit issue may be sufficient reason to kill this idea;
> not sure.

We already have a much higher cost for blocks that cause i/o than blocks which
don't. I think if we had zero cost for blocks which don't cause i/o it would
basically work unless the sleep time was so large that the other scans managed
to cycle through the entire ring in that time.

--
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com