| From: | Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] binary heap implementation |
| Date: | 2012-11-21 05:15:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20121121051553.GA25027@toroid.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 2012-11-20 22:55:52 -0500, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us wrote:
>
> BTW, I probably missed some context upthread, but why do we have two
> fields at all?
I would also have preferred to handle the nodeMergeAppend case using a
context pointer as you suggest, but Andres needs to store two pointers
in his heap nodes.
Andres: suppose we replace binaryheap_node with just a Datum, could you
live with storing a pointer to a struct with two pointers? If so, that
would address the concerns raised.
If not, maybe we should explore Robert's earlier suggestion to make
binaryheap_node user-definable (in effect).
-- Abhijit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Kupershmidt | 2012-11-21 05:53:23 | Re: Suggestion for --truncate-tables to pg_restore |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-11-21 03:55:52 | Re: [PATCH] binary heap implementation |