Re: More work on SortSupport for text - strcoll() and strxfrm() caching
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: More work on SortSupport for text - strcoll() and strxfrm() caching |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM3SWZSXc03c306Pt5xEXwEUrWOzynezqye8vvCiqfEy9KAw1Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: More work on SortSupport for text - strcoll() and strxfrm() caching (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: More work on SortSupport for text - strcoll() and
strxfrm() caching
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > Hmm. But then this doesn't seem to make much sense: > > + * Rearrange the bytes of a Datum into little-endian order from big-endian > + * order. On big-endian machines, this does nothing at all. > > Rearranging bytes into little-endian order ought to be a no-op on a > little-endian machine; and rearranging them into big-endian order > ought to be a no-op on a big-endian machine. I think that that's very clearly implied anyway. > Thinking about this a bit more, it seems like the situation we're in > here is that the input datum is always going to be big-endian. > Regardless of what the machine's integer format is, the sortsupport > abbreviator is going to output a Datum where the most significant byte > is the first one stored in the datum. We want to convert that Datum > to one that has *native* endianness. So maybe we should call this > DatumBigEndianToNative or something like that. I'd be fine with DatumBigEndianToNative() -- I agree that that's slightly better. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: