Gregory Stark wrote:

> Attached is a small patch which fixes this case. It also makes the check
> slightly more liberal -- we don't need to resort if the previous sort was
> unbounded or the bound was greater than or equal to the new bound.

Huh, can you clarify this comment:

+        * XXX It would be nice to check tuplesortstate->boundUsed too but that
+        * seems like an abstraction violation. And for that matter to check
+        * the tuplesort to see if randomaccess is possible even if it wasn't
+        * requested so we don't resort input when the parameters haven't
+        * changed if it was sorted in memory.

I'm having serious trouble parsing it.


Alvaro Herrera                      
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to