Re: upper planner path-ification

Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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