Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] putting CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in qsort_comparetup()

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: "Charles Duffy" <charles(dot)duffy(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] putting CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in qsort_comparetup()
Date: 2006-07-14 19:26:55
Message-ID: 4373.1152905215@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> We might have to just tolerate this, but if it occurs on a lot of
>> platforms I'd have second thoughts about applying the patch.  Anyone
>> familiar with the internals of glibc's qsort, in particular?

> Doesn't look like it's allocating any nonlocal memory:

> http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/libc/stdlib/qsort.c?rev=1.12&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&cvsroot=glibc

But this file defines _quicksort() not qsort().  I was under the
impression that the latter is actually a mergesort in glibc ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2006-07-14 19:29:20
Subject: Re: src/tools/pginclude considered harmful (was Re: [PATCHES]
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2006-07-14 19:12:57
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] putting CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in qsort_comparetup()

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2006-07-14 19:29:20
Subject: Re: src/tools/pginclude considered harmful (was Re: [PATCHES]
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2006-07-14 19:23:21
Subject: Re: Maintenance and External Projects (try 2)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group