On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 05:46:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes: > > For a moment it seemed logical to suggest a session GUC for the seed, > > so if you got a bad plan you could keep rolling the dice until you got > > one you liked; but my right-brain kept sending shivers down my spine > > to suggest just how uncomfortable it was with that idea.... > > If memory serves, we actually had exactly that at some point. But I > think the reason it got taken out was that it interfered with the > behavior of the random() function for everything else. We'd have to > give GEQO its own private random number generator. > > regards, tom lane > A separate random number generator for GECO make a lot of sense.
Cheers, Ken -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
