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!
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
