Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Shaun Thomas <shaun(dot)thomas(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)
Date: 2020-03-31 17:58:24
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 1:04 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Perhaps the semantics are such that that's actually sensible, but it's
>> far from a straightforward remapping of the old enum.

> Right, I didn't see the explicit "= 0" in other enums there, so it
> made me wonder if it was intentional to designate that one had to be
> 0, but I guess without a comment that's a lot of inference.

It's possible that somebody meant that as an indicator that the code
depends on palloc0() leaving the field with that value. But if so,
you'd soon find that out ... and an actual comment would be better,

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2020-03-31 17:58:45 Re: Add A Glossary
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-03-31 17:53:37 Re: Less-silly selectivity for JSONB matching operators