cost_nonsequential_access() is really totally inappropriate for its only
remaining use, namely estimating I/O costs in cost_sort(). The routine
was designed on the assumption that disk caching might eliminate the need
for some re-reads on a random basis, but there's nothing very random in
that sense about sort's access pattern --- it'll always be picking up the
oldest outputs. If we had a good fix on the effective cache size we
might consider charging zero for I/O unless the sort temp file size
exceeds it, but that's probably putting much too much faith in the
parameter. Instead just drop the logic in favor of a fixed compromise
between seq_page_cost and random_page_cost per page of sort I/O.
7868590c61