Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I looked through this a little, and feel uncomfortable with the division
>> of typedefs between execnodes.h and tuplesort.h. I'm inclined to push
>> struct SortInstrumentation, and maybe also SharedSortInfo, into
>> tuplesort.h.
> I think moving SharedSortInfo into tuplesort.h would be a gross
> abstraction violation, but moving SortInstrumentation into tuplesort.h
> seems like a modest improvement.
Hmm, I'm not sure why SortInstrumentation belongs naturally to
tuplesort.h but putting an array of them there would be a "gross
abstraction violation". Perhaps it would help to rename
struct SharedSortInfo to SortInstrumentationArray, and change its
field names to be less specific to the parallel-worker use case?
>> (BTW, would it make sense to number the workers from 1 not 0 in the
>> EXPLAIN printout?)
> ... So I'm in favor of leaving it alone; I don't think that 0-based
> indexing is such an obscure convention that it will flummox users.
OK, I'm not particularly set on that.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
