On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 02:26:18PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Uh, why? It's not a large amount of code and it seems like removing > > it puts a fair-size hole in the symmetry of tuplesort's capabilities. > > It's not a small amount of code either. > > Removing the code clarifies the division of labor between COPYTUP() > routines in general, their callers (tuplesort_putheaptuple() and > tuplesort_puttupleslot() -- which are also puttuple_common() callers), > and routines that are similar to those caller routines (in that they > at least call puttuple_common()) that do not call COPYTUP() > (tuplesort_putdatum(), and now tuplesort_putindextuplevalues()). > > I believe that this has value. All the extra boilerplate code misleads.
At a minimum we can block out the code with #ifdef NOT_USED. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
