Re: TABLESAMPLE patch

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, 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 23:44:07
Message-ID: 54CAC5C7.8080103@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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 <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!

+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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2015-01-29 23:49:43 Re: Exposing the stats snapshot timestamp to SQL
Previous Message David Steele 2015-01-29 23:39:23 Re: pg_upgrade and rsync