On 2018-10-01 12:13:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2018-10-01 11:58:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Oooh ... apparently, on that platform, memcmp() is willing to produce > >> INT_MIN in some cases. That's not a safe value for a sort comparator > >> to produce --- we explicitly say that somewhere, IIRC. > > > Hm, that'd be pretty painful - memcmp() isn't guaranteed to return > > anything smaller. And we use memcmp in a fair number of comparators. > > Yeah. So our choices are > > (1) Retain the current restriction on what sort comparators can > produce. Find all the places where memcmp's result is returned > directly, and fix them. (I wonder if strcmp has same issue.) > > (2) Drop the restriction. This'd require at least changing the > DESC correction, and maybe other things. I'm not sure what the > odds would be of finding everyplace we need to check. > > Neither one is sounding very pleasant, or maintainable.
(2) seems more maintainable to me (or perhaps less unmaintainable). It's infrastructure, rather than every datatype + support out there... Greetings, Andres Freund
