Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> 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.
> OK. I'll defer to whatever you come up with after looking at it. OK, it looks like nodeMergeAppend.c could use something exactly like the draft SortKey struct, while nodeMergejoin.c could embed such a struct in MergeJoinClauseData. The btree stuff needs something more nearly equivalent to a ScanKey, including a datum-to-compare-to and a flags field. I'm inclined to think the latter would be too specialized to put in the generic struct. On the other hand, including the reverse and nulls_first flags in the generic struct is clearly a win since it allows ApplyComparator() to be defined as a generic function. So the only thing that's really debatable is the attno field, and I'm not anal enough to insist on a separate level of struct just for that. I am however inclined to stick with the shortened struct name SortSupport rather than using SortKey. The presence of the function pointer fields (especially the inlined-qsort pointers, assuming we adopt some form of Peter's patch) changes the struct's nature in my view; it's not really describing just a sort key (ie an ORDER BY column specification). 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