On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> 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. > > OK, it looks like nodeMergeAppend.c could use something exactly like the > draft SortKey struct, while nodeMergejoin.c could embed such a struct in > MergeJoinClauseData. The btree stuff needs something more nearly > equivalent to a ScanKey, including a datum-to-compare-to and a flags > field. I'm inclined to think the latter would be too specialized to put > in the generic struct. On the other hand, including the reverse and > nulls_first flags in the generic struct is clearly a win since it allows > ApplyComparator() to be defined as a generic function. So the only > thing that's really debatable is the attno field, and I'm not anal > enough to insist on a separate level of struct just for that. > > I am however inclined to stick with the shortened struct name SortSupport > rather than using SortKey. The presence of the function pointer fields > (especially the inlined-qsort pointers, assuming we adopt some form of > Peter's patch) changes the struct's nature in my view; it's not really > describing just a sort key (ie an ORDER BY column specification).
Works for me. I think we should go ahead and get this part committed first, and then we can look at the inlining stuff as a further optimization for certain cases... -- 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
