| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ronan Dunklau <ronan(dot)dunklau(at)aiven(dot)io>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> |
| Subject: | Re: Use generation context to speed up tuplesorts |
| Date: | 2022-04-24 01:11:45 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=n_BHUeWwOOQEF3wqVZD_iBuQG+b+4F77zsijrbnZ+_w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 5:59 PM Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> This (commit 77bae39) did not change function parameter counts, and
> TUPLESORT_RANDOMACCESS generally has same the same numeric value as "true". I
> get no warning if I pass "true" for the "sortopt" flags parameter. Hence, I
> suspect this did not break the API. Should we be happy about that? I'm fine
> with it.
If I happened to believe that this issue (or one like it) might have
real negative consequences, and that those consequences could easily
be avoided (by making the API break impossible to overlook), then I
would object -- why even take a small chance? Fortunately I don't
believe that we're even taking a small chance here, all things
considered. And so I agree; this issue isn't a concern.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Isaac Morland | 2022-04-24 02:43:33 | Re: Why is EXECUTE granted to PUBLIC for all routines? |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2022-04-24 00:59:38 | Re: Use generation context to speed up tuplesorts |