On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:08:55AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Yes, that's my view too. I would generally be for that change also and it > > would be worth it if the code was used in more than one place, but as it is > > it seems like it will just add code/complexity for no real benefit. It would > > make sense in case we used sequential scan node instead of the new node as > > Amit also suggested, but I remain unconvinced that mixing sampling and > > sequential scan into single scan node would be a good idea. > > Based on previous experience, I expect that any proposal to merge > those nodes would get shot down by Tom with his laser-guided atomic > bazooka faster than you can say "-1 from me regards tom lane".
Do we get illustrations with that? ;-) I want a poster for my wall! -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
