Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)

...
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)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.