From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Douglas Doole <dougdoole(at)gmail(dot)com>, Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Push limit to sort through a subquery |
Date: | 2017-08-25 18:54:50 |
Message-ID: | 24851.1503687290@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-08-25 18:59:34 | Re: MAIN, Uncompressed? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-25 18:36:30 | Re: [PATCH] Push limit to sort through a subquery |