Gregory Stark wrote: > Attached is a small patch which fixes this case. It also makes the check > slightly more liberal -- we don't need to resort if the previous sort was > unbounded or the bound was greater than or equal to the new bound.
Huh, can you clarify this comment: + * XXX It would be nice to check tuplesortstate->boundUsed too but that + * seems like an abstraction violation. And for that matter to check + * the tuplesort to see if randomaccess is possible even if it wasn't + * requested so we don't resort input when the parameters haven't + * changed if it was sorted in memory. I'm having serious trouble parsing it. Thanks. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org