On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> OK. Well, then pushing it out to a separate file probably makes >> sense. Do you want to do that or shall I have a crack at it? If the >> latter, what do you think about using the name SortKey for everything >> rather than SortSupport? > > I'll take another crack at it. I'm not entirely sold yet on merging > the two structs; I think first we'd better look and see what the needs > are in the other potential callers I mentioned. If we'd end up > cluttering the struct with half a dozen weird fields, it'd be better to > stick to a minimal interface struct with various wrapper structs, IMO.
OK. I'll defer to whatever you come up with after looking at it. > OTOH it did seem that the names were getting a bit long. If we do > keep the two-struct-levels approach, what do you think of > s/SortSupportInfo/SortSupport/g ? +1. I had that thought when you originally suggested that name, but it didn't seem worth arguing about. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
