| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomáš Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> |
| Subject: | Re: TABLESAMPLE patch |
| Date: | 2015-01-29 16:44:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20150129164413.GC4482@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:08:55AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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 <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-01-29 16:57:49 | Re: Exposing the stats snapshot timestamp to SQL |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-01-29 16:40:09 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |