Re: Progress on fast path sorting, btree index creation time

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> That was clear from an early stage, and is something that I
> acknowledged way back in September

OK, so why didn't/don't we do and commit that part first, and then
proceed to argue about the remainder once it's in?

> I think that there may be additional benefits from making the
> qsort_arg specialisation look less like a c stdlib one, like refining
> the swap logic to have compile-time knowledge of the type it is
> sorting. I'm thinking that we could usefully trim quite a bit from
> this:

That's an interesting idea, which seems worth pursuing, though
possibly not for 9.2.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company