On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 9:56 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 08:46:56PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > Doesn't hurt to fix the comparison functions, and +1 on using the same > > pattern everywhere. > > I attached a new version of the patch with some small adjustments. I > haven't looked through all in-tree qsort() comparators to see if any others > need to be adjusted, but we should definitely do so as part of this thread. > Mats, are you able to do this? > Sure, I checked them and the only ones remaining are those using int16. Shall I modify those as well? > > However, we use our qsort() with user-defined comparison functions, and > we > > cannot make any guarantees about what they might do. So we must ensure > that > > our qsort() doesn't overflow, no matter what the comparison function > does. > > > > Looking at our ST_SORT(), it seems safe to me. > > Cool. > > -- > Nathan Bossart > Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com >
