Re: upper planner path-ification

Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom> So I'm all for refactoring, but I think it will happen as a natural
> Tom> byproduct of path-ification, and otherwise would be rather forced.

> Hrm, ok. So for the near future, we should leave it more or less as-is?
> We don't have a timescale yet, but it's our intention to submit a
> hashagg support patch for grouping sets as soon as time permits.

Well, mumble. I keep saying that I want to tackle path-ification in
that area, and I keep not finding the time to actually do it. So I'm
hesitant to tell you that you should wait on it. But certainly I think
that it'll be a lot easier to get hashagg costing done in that framework
than in what currently exists.

regards, tom lane