On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...but I'm wondering what underlies that decision. I would
> understand the decision to go that way if it simplified things
> elsewhere, but in fact it seems that's what underlies the addition of
> ssup_operator to SortSupportData, which in turn requires a number of
> changes elsewhere.
The changes aren't too invasive. There is exactly one place where it
isn't a trivial matter of storing the operator that was already
available:
+ /* Original operator must be provided */
+ clause->ssup.ssup_operator = get_opfamily_member(opfamily,
+
op_lefttype,
+
op_righttype,
+
opstrategy);
> So I think it's better to just change the sortsupport contract so that
> filling in the comparator is optional. Patch for that attached.
> Objections?
I'd have preferred to maintain the obligation for some sane
sortsupport state to be provided. It's not as if I feel too strongly
about it, though.
You attached "git diff --stat" output, and not an actual patch. Please re-send.
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
