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@2ndquadrant.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