Re: Why we have tuplestore and tuplesort?

2009/8/16 Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> 2009/8/16 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Looking for git/cvs log a bit, tuplesort was already there since 1999
>>> while tuplestore was introduced around 2000 for materialized node. Why
>>> then was tuplestore invented as a new feature instead of extending
>>> tuplesort? Can't we unit them now?
>>
>> I think they'd be unmaintainable if merged.  Each one is complicated
>> enough as-is, and they have different concerns and different use-cases
>> to optimize for.  Moreover it's not clear that merging them would buy us
>> much --- saving one copy step doesn't excite me, even if it actually
>> came out to be true which I'm unconvinced about.
>>
>>                        regards, tom lane
>>
>
> I agree it would be unmaintainable. However it sounds like there's no
> crystal clear reason the two are separated. Before tuplestore got
> multiple read pointers it was quite similar to tuplestore except

oops, "similar to tuplesort"

> performing sort so I can imagine allowing tuplesort to have multiple
> read pointers.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Hitoshi Harada
>

--
Hitoshi Harada