Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > OK. Well, then pushing it out to a separate file probably makes > sense. Do you want to do that or shall I have a crack at it? If the > latter, what do you think about using the name SortKey for everything > rather than SortSupport?
I'll take another crack at it. I'm not entirely sold yet on merging the two structs; I think first we'd better look and see what the needs are in the other potential callers I mentioned. If we'd end up cluttering the struct with half a dozen weird fields, it'd be better to stick to a minimal interface struct with various wrapper structs, IMO. OTOH it did seem that the names were getting a bit long. If we do keep the two-struct-levels approach, what do you think of s/SortSupportInfo/SortSupport/g ? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers