pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
To: James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>
Cc: Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Rafia Sabih <rafia.pghackers@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Shaun Thomas <shaun.thomas@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 03:38:51 +0100
Message-ID: <20200323023851.farartp34rlh7jwj@development> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAaqYe-2xD38pD2BXQ95nQh98d5HmOT_mEVdhf-0f+aRcXdo8A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAaqYe9Y6Hc35N2+eRMhPvc1YJ1LhdZjzT8k7J1KGcx_JC+_Kw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAaqYe_9eQoZZ1rS8pXy+3AdkAHjejB0ANbh+-ipv04NcxxCYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAaqYe_NjXv9TZ3rjO=hMzL3KvEj-9Ado3qUKRS3F0DCcS3R4g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20200314195822.bc2mqyvolo2w5l2w@development>
	<CAAaqYe-g9Gsc7_imKK7N871JOHQzZ=VGKd=nTdK-5PQ53YuWYg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20200321005640.vrwcpyis6ahmspwt@development>
	<77129b5b-5266-2a89-a63e-da6691b60584@proxel.se>
	<CAAaqYe8NJeR+WQxAY-FKfEDVjLhqZMhLXYpMfF65VEVz80iQ1g@mail.gmail.com>
	<70ed0ba6-2941-a372-b2e6-5ffa2bb77e0e@proxel.se>
	<CAAaqYe-2xD38pD2BXQ95nQh98d5HmOT_mEVdhf-0f+aRcXdo8A@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 10:05:50PM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 8:54 PM Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/23/20 1:33 AM, James Coleman wrote:
>> > So on the face of it we have a bit of a no-win situation. The function
>> > tuple_sort_method_name returns a const, but lappend wants a non-const.
>> > I'm not sure what the project style preference is here: we could cast
>> > the result as (char *) to drop the const qualifier, but that's frowned
>> > upon some places. Alternatively we could make a new non-const copy of
>> > string. Which is preferable in the postgres project style?
>>
>> The PostgreSQL has places where const is explicitly casted away with the
>> unconstify() macro, so unless you can find a better solution that is
>> probably an ok option.
>
>Thanks, that's exactly what I need!
>

Yeah, sorry I forgot to mention/fix the warning in the last review round.

BTW I think the comment for pathkeys_useful_for_ordering() needs
updating, it still claims it's all-or-nothing affair, but that's no
longer true I think.


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services





view thread (262+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <20200323023851.farartp34rlh7jwj@development>
Permalink:  ../20200323023851.farartp34rlh7jwj@development/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/20200323023851.farartp34rlh7jwj@development

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com, jtc331@gmail.com, andreas@proxel.se, michael@paquier.xyz, rafia.pghackers@gmail.com, pg@bowt.ie, simon@2ndquadrant.com, shaun.thomas@2ndquadrant.com, 9erthalion6@gmail.com, a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com
  Subject: Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)
  In-Reply-To: <20200323023851.farartp34rlh7jwj@development>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox