"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This patch makes what was already a hack into a full-fledged crock (and > it's not just the self-doubting comments that make me distrust it). > I think we need to rip out this ad-hoc parameter change signaling code > and make it work through the regular chgParam mechanism. Not sure about > details though. There may be no clean solution short of folding > Sort and Limit into a single node type.
Well I can't disagree, I always was concerned about the inter-node communication part. If I have power on the train I might look at it then but otherwise I'm offline until Monday. >> I think it would be worthwhile adding a method to tuplesort to ask whether >> random access is possible and how many tuples were actually kept. Then >> nodeSort could ask it those values instead of just remembering what values >> were requested. > > I disagree with this line of development, as it amounts to exposing > tuplesort implementation details as API. I'm not sure I agree. What's the difference if between using a boolean value we pass to tuplesort requesting random access and using a boolean value we get back from asking tuplesort? The "tuples_needed" is a bit of a wart but then it's the same inevitable wart as set_bound. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
