On 1/29/15 10:44 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
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!
+1. It should also be the tshirt for the next pgCon. ;)
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
