On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > That was clear from an early stage, and is something that I > acknowledged way back in September
OK, so why didn't/don't we do and commit that part first, and then proceed to argue about the remainder once it's in? > I think that there may be additional benefits from making the > qsort_arg specialisation look less like a c stdlib one, like refining > the swap logic to have compile-time knowledge of the type it is > sorting. I'm thinking that we could usefully trim quite a bit from > this: That's an interesting idea, which seems worth pursuing, though possibly not for 9.2. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
