Re: TABLESAMPLE patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: TABLESAMPLE patch
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZPyoVL4v9sR-DsjJro_O+-y2gN_FdTZyPDe+vkbFBf6g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: TABLESAMPLE patch  (Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: TABLESAMPLE patch
List pgsql-hackers
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".

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Hot Standby WAL reply uses heavyweight session locks, but doesn't have enough infrastructure set up
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Memory leak in gingetbitmap