+1 - Luke
On 10/3/06 2:58 PM, "Mark Kirkwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Given the time that has been spent working around >>> the braindamaged behavior of qsort() on various platforms, I would be >>> more inclined to *always* use our qsort() instead of the platform's >>> version. >> >> I've been heard to argue against that in the past, but I'm beginning to >> see the merit of the idea. One good reason for doing it is that we >> could stop worrying about the possibility of large-scale memory leaks >> due to erroring out of glibc's qsort --- in particular it would be OK >> to add CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS into the comparison callback as was >> requested recently. >> > > I think this is a great idea - having predictable sort performance on > all platforms makes a lot of sense. > > Cheers > > Mark > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
