... On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> wrote: > Since it is true that doing so would make it impossible to keep the > asserts about tupindex in tuplesort_heap_root_displace, I guess it > depends on how useful those asserts are (ie: how likely it is that > those conditions could be violated, and how damaging it could be if > they were). If it is decided the refactor is desirable, I'd suggest > making the common siftup producedure static inline, to allow > tuplesort_heap_root_displace to inline and specialize it, since it > will be called with checkIndex=False and that simplifies the resulting > code considerably. > > Peter also mentioned that there were some other changes going on in > the surrounding code that could impact this patch, so I'm marking the > patch Waiting on Author. > > Overall, however, I believe the patch is in good shape. Only minor > form issues need to be changed, the functionality seems both desirable > and ready.
Sorry, forgot to specify, that was all about patch 3, the one about tuplesort_heap_root_displace. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
