> I reviewed > your patch. It seems to be in good shape, and worked as > expected. I > suppressed a compiler warning in the patch and cleaned up > whitespaces in it. > Patch attached.
Thanks for the review! I saw that you also changed the writing: LogicalTapeWrite(state->tapeset, tapenum, tuple, HEAPTUPLESIZE); LogicalTapeWrite(state->tapeset, tapenum, tuple->t_data, tuple->t_len-HEAPTUPLESIZE); and the reading: tuple->t_len = tuplen - HEAPTUPLESIZE; if (LogicalTapeRead(state->tapeset, tapenum, &tuple->t_self, tuplen-sizeof(tuplen)) != tuplen-sizeof(tuplen)) elog(ERROR, "unexpected end of data"); into (writing): LogicalTapeWrite(state->tapeset, tapenum, tuple, tuple->t_len); (reading): if (LogicalTapeRead(state->tapeset, tapenum, &tuple->t_self, tuplen-sizeof(tuplen)) != tuplen-sizeof(tuplen)) Are we sure it's 100% equivalent? I remember I had issues with the fact that tuple->t_data wasn't at HEAPTUPLESIZE distance from tuple: http://osdir.com/ml/pgsql-hackers/2010-02/msg00744.html > I think we need some documentation for the change. The > only downside > of the feature is that sorted cluster requires twice disk > spaces of > the target table (temp space for disk sort and the result > table). > Could I ask you to write documentation about the new > behavior? > Also, code comments can be improved; especially we need > better > description than "copy&paste from > FormIndexDatum". I'll try to improve the comments and add doc changes (but my English will have to be double checked...) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers