Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> My memory says this was eventually removed, even though it was committed
>> for a time. Am I wrong?
>> - Make EXPLAIN sampling smarter, to avoid excessive sampling delay
>> (Martijn van Oosterhout)
> I see a reversion for EXPLAIN ANALYZE only:
> date: 2006/06/09 19:30:56; author: tgl; state: Exp; lines: +27 -172
> Revert sampling patch for EXPLAIN ANALYZE; it turns out to be too
> unreliable because node timing is much less predictable than the patch
> expects. I kept the API change for InstrStopNode, however.
> so the item is probably still OK.
No, Simon is right, that entry should be removed --- there's nothing
interesting left of the patch :-(
regards, tom lane
