Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 13:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Is it worth renaming our qsort to pg_qsort to avoid this? (I'd be
>> inclined to do that via a macro "#define qsort pg_qsort", not by running
>> around and changing all the code.)
> Why not change each call site? I don't think it would hurt to be clear
> about the fact that we're calling our own sorting function, not the
> platform's libc qsort().
I'm concerned about the prospect of someone forgetting to use pg_qsort,
and getting the likely-inferior platform one.
However, the only place where we probably care very much is tuplesort.c,
and that's using qsort_arg now anyway. So plan C might be to drop
port/qsort.c altogether, and just be sure to use qsort_arg anyplace that
we care about not getting the platform one.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
