> I reviewed 
> your patch. It seems to be in good shape, and worked as
> expected. I 
> suppressed a compiler warning in the patch and cleaned up
> whitespaces in it. 
> Patch attached.


Thanks for the review!

I saw that you also changed the writing:

 LogicalTapeWrite(state->tapeset, tapenum,
 tuple, HEAPTUPLESIZE);
 LogicalTapeWrite(state->tapeset, tapenum, tuple->t_data, tuple->t_len-HEAPTUPLESIZE);


and the reading:

 tuple->t_len = tuplen - HEAPTUPLESIZE;
 if (LogicalTapeRead(state->tapeset, tapenum, &tuple->t_self, tuplen-sizeof(tuplen)) != tuplen-sizeof(tuplen))
  elog(ERROR, "unexpected end of data");



into (writing):

 LogicalTapeWrite(state->tapeset, tapenum,
    tuple, tuple->t_len);


(reading):

if (LogicalTapeRead(state->tapeset, tapenum, &tuple->t_self, tuplen-sizeof(tuplen)) != tuplen-sizeof(tuplen))



Are we sure it's 100% equivalent?

I remember I had issues with the fact that tuple->t_data wasn't
at HEAPTUPLESIZE distance from tuple:

http://osdir.com/ml/pgsql-hackers/2010-02/msg00744.html


> I think we need some documentation for the change. The 
> only downside
> of the feature is that sorted cluster requires twice disk 
> spaces of
> the target table (temp space for disk sort and the result 
> table).
> Could I ask you to write documentation about the new 
> behavior?
> Also, code comments can be improved; especially we need 
> better
> description than "copy&paste from 
> FormIndexDatum".


I'll try to improve the comments and add doc changes (but my English
will have to be double checked...)



      

In response to

• Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch at 2010-07-06 07:52:27 from Takahiro Itagaki

Responses

• Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch at 2010-07-07 08:39:38 from Takahiro Itagaki

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2010-07-06 13:23:40
	Subject: Re: get_whatever_oid, part 2
Previous:	From: Takahiro Itagaki	Date: 2010-07-06 07:52:27
	Subject: Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch