On 03/21/2012 10:47 AM, 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.
>
Presumably the reason that's not good enough is that is scans the whole
table (as well as being non-portable)? Maybe we could find some less
invasive way of avoiding that.
cheers
andrew
