Re: PG qsort vs. Solaris

+1

- Luke

On 10/3/06 2:58 PM, "Mark Kirkwood" <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> wrote:

> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
>>> Given the time that has been spent working around
>>> the braindamaged behavior of qsort() on various platforms, I would be
>>> more inclined to *always* use our qsort() instead of the platform's
>>> version.
>>
>> I've been heard to argue against that in the past, but I'm beginning to
>> see the merit of the idea. One good reason for doing it is that we
>> could stop worrying about the possibility of large-scale memory leaks
>> due to erroring out of glibc's qsort --- in particular it would be OK
>> to add CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS into the comparison callback as was
>> requested recently.
>>
>
> I think this is a great idea - having predictable sort performance on
> all platforms makes a lot of sense.
>
> Cheers
>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>