| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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 16:08:55 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZPyoVL4v9sR-DsjJro_O+-y2gN_FdTZyPDe+vkbFBf6g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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".
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-01-29 16:09:31 | Memory leak in gingetbitmap |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-01-29 16:01:51 | Re: Hot Standby WAL reply uses heavyweight session locks, but doesn't have enough infrastructure set up |