Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > Agreed. ?Doing something once and doing something in the sort loop are > > two different overheads. > > OK, so I tried to code this up. Adding the new amproc wasn't too > difficult (see attached). It wasn't obvious to me how to tie it into > the tuplesort infrastructure, though, so instead of wasting time > guessing what a sensible approach might be I'm going to use one of my > lifelines and poll the audience (or is that ask an expert?). > Currently the Tuplesortstate[1] has a pointer to an array of > ScanKeyData objects, one per column being sorted. But now instead of > "FmgrInfo sk_func", the tuplesort code is going to want each scankey > to contain "SortSupportInfo(Data?) sk_sortsupport"[2], because that's > where we get the comparison function from. Should I just go ahead > and add one more member to that struct, or is there some more > appropriate way to handle this?
Is this code immediately usable anywhere else in our codebasde, and if so, is it generic enough? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
