| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation |
| Date: | 2011-12-06 18:07:08 |
| Message-ID: | 12461.1323194828@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> OK. Well, then pushing it out to a separate file probably makes
> sense. Do you want to do that or shall I have a crack at it? If the
> latter, what do you think about using the name SortKey for everything
> rather than SortSupport?
I'll take another crack at it. I'm not entirely sold yet on merging
the two structs; I think first we'd better look and see what the needs
are in the other potential callers I mentioned. If we'd end up
cluttering the struct with half a dozen weird fields, it'd be better to
stick to a minimal interface struct with various wrapper structs, IMO.
OTOH it did seem that the names were getting a bit long. If we do
keep the two-struct-levels approach, what do you think of
s/SortSupportInfo/SortSupport/g ?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-12-06 18:08:29 | Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-12-06 18:06:36 | Re: xlog location arithmetic |