Re: [HACKERS] putting CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in qsort_comparetup()

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: "Charles Duffy" <charles(dot)duffy(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] putting CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in qsort_comparetup()
Date: 2006-07-14 19:26:55
Message-ID: 4373.1152905215@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> We might have to just tolerate this, but if it occurs on a lot of
>> platforms I'd have second thoughts about applying the patch. Anyone
>> familiar with the internals of glibc's qsort, in particular?

> Doesn't look like it's allocating any nonlocal memory:

> http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/libc/stdlib/qsort.c?rev=1.12&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&cvsroot=glibc

But this file defines _quicksort() not qsort(). I was under the
impression that the latter is actually a mergesort in glibc ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-07-14 19:29:20 Re: src/tools/pginclude considered harmful (was Re: [PATCHES]
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2006-07-14 19:12:57 Re: [HACKERS] putting CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in qsort_comparetup()

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-07-14 19:29:20 Re: src/tools/pginclude considered harmful (was Re: [PATCHES]
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2006-07-14 19:23:21 Re: Maintenance and External Projects (try 2)