Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 03:38:51 +0100
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
To: James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>
Cc: Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>,
	Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Rafia Sabih <rafia.pghackers@gmail.com>,
	Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Shaun Thomas <shaun.thomas@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>,
	Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>,
	Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)
Message-ID: <20200323023851.farartp34rlh7jwj@development>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAaqYe-2xD38pD2BXQ95nQh98d5HmOT_mEVdhf-0f+aRcXdo8A@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

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