On 15 February 2012 22:54, Gaetano Mendola <mend...@gmail.com> wrote: > That sounds a bit harsh. I'm one of those indeed, I haven't look in the > details not having enough time for it. At work we do GPU computing (not > the sort type stuff) and given the fact I'm a Postgres enthusiast I > asked my self: "my server is able to sort around 500 milions integer per > seconds, if postgres was able to do that as well it would be very nice". > > What I have to say? Sorry for my thoughts.
I'm not trying to sound harsh. The only reason that my patch *nearly* had support for this was because the implementation that we nearly went with would have only needed another couple of lines of code to support it. It very probably wouldn't have turned out to have been useful for any novel sorting idea, and was really only intended to be used to support user-defined full sorting specialisations. That didn't end up making the cut. My point is that whatever is holding back the development of a useful prototype here, it definitely isn't the lack of an existing API. We don't know what such an API should look like, and just how invasive it needs to be. More importantly, it remains to be seen how useful this idea is in the real world - we don't have so much as a synthetic test case with a single client, as far as I'm aware. I'd encourage the OP to share his work on github or something along those lines. -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers