Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> OK. Well, then pushing it out to a separate file probably makes
> sense. Do you want to do that or shall I have a crack at it? If the
> latter, what do you think about using the name SortKey for everything
> rather than SortSupport?
I'll take another crack at it. I'm not entirely sold yet on merging
the two structs; I think first we'd better look and see what the needs
are in the other potential callers I mentioned. If we'd end up
cluttering the struct with half a dozen weird fields, it'd be better to
stick to a minimal interface struct with various wrapper structs, IMO.
OTOH it did seem that the names were getting a bit long. If we do
keep the two-struct-levels approach, what do you think of
s/SortSupportInfo/SortSupport/g ?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
