On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 02:26:18PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Uh, why? It's not a large amount of code and it seems like removing
> > it puts a fair-size hole in the symmetry of tuplesort's capabilities.
>
> It's not a small amount of code either.
>
> Removing the code clarifies the division of labor between COPYTUP()
> routines in general, their callers (tuplesort_putheaptuple() and
> tuplesort_puttupleslot() -- which are also puttuple_common() callers),
> and routines that are similar to those caller routines (in that they
> at least call puttuple_common()) that do not call COPYTUP()
> (tuplesort_putdatum(), and now tuplesort_putindextuplevalues()).
>
> I believe that this has value. All the extra boilerplate code misleads.
At a minimum we can block out the code with #ifdef NOT_USED.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +