| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Qi Huang <huangqiyx(at)hotmail(dot)com>, "neil(dot)conway" <neil(dot)conway(at)gmail(dot)com>, daniel <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gsoc2012 Idea --- Social Network database schema |
| Date: | 2012-03-21 14:57:15 |
| Message-ID: | 201203211557.15789.andres@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 03:47:23 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié mar 21 11:35:54 -0300 2012:
> > Now that would all be fine if this were a widely-desired feature, but
> > AFAIR the user demand for it has been about nil. So I'm leaning to
> > the position that we don't want it.
>
> I disagree with there being zero interest ... the "order by random()"
> stuff does come up occasionally.
Yes.
I wonder if could be hacked ontop of a plain seqscan node instead of building
a completely separate infrastructure. The standards syntax would then simply
be transformed into a select with some special ORDER BY
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-03-21 14:57:53 | Re: renaming domain constraint |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-21 14:48:16 | Re: Finer Extension dependencies |