On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 03:47:23 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié mar 21 11:35:54 -0300 2012:
> > Now that would all be fine if this were a widely-desired feature, but
> > AFAIR the user demand for it has been about nil. So I'm leaning to
> > the position that we don't want it.
>
> I disagree with there being zero interest ... the "order by random()"
> stuff does come up occasionally.
Yes.
I wonder if could be hacked ontop of a plain seqscan node instead of building
a completely separate infrastructure. The standards syntax would then simply
be transformed into a select with some special ORDER BY
Andres
