Re: Fix for seg picksplit function
От | Yeb Havinga |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Fix for seg picksplit function |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4CDAB69C.2000103@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Fix for seg picksplit function (Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Fix for seg picksplit function
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2010-11-10 14:53, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
However all other sorts in picksplit functions already seem to do it this way. I'm not sure it's wise to introduce a different approach.
regards,
Yeb Havinga
Another reason for not using is FirstOffsetNumber and it's related macro's on the qsort array, is that InvalidOffsetNumber (0) is not invalid for the array.Actually I can't understand the purpose of FirstOffsetNumber and OffsetNumberNext macros. When I wrote the patch I though about sortItems as about "clean from all these strange things" array, that's why I didn't use OffsetNumberNext there. :)I see only way to save logic of these macros is to use array starting from FirstOffsetNumber index like in gbt_num_picksplit.
However all other sorts in picksplit functions already seem to do it this way. I'm not sure it's wise to introduce a different approach.
+1The assignment to *left and *right at the end of the routine seem pretty
useless (not to mention the comment talking about a routine that doesn't
exist anywhere).I found, that gtrgm_picksplit in pg_trgm and gtsvector_picksplit in core still use this assignment, while gist_box_picksplit and gbt_num_picksplit not. If this assignment is overall useless, than I think we should remove it from gtrgm_picksplit and gtsvector_picksplit in order to not mislead developers of gist implementations.
regards,
Yeb Havinga
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: