At 2012-11-20 22:55:52 -0500, t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: > > BTW, I probably missed some context upthread, but why do we have two > fields at all?
I would also have preferred to handle the nodeMergeAppend case using a context pointer as you suggest, but Andres needs to store two pointers in his heap nodes. Andres: suppose we replace binaryheap_node with just a Datum, could you live with storing a pointer to a struct with two pointers? If so, that would address the concerns raised. If not, maybe we should explore Robert's earlier suggestion to make binaryheap_node user-definable (in effect). -- Abhijit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
