From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: qsort vs MSVC build |
Date: | 2006-10-19 18:11:00 |
Message-ID: | 29952.1161281460@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 13:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Is it worth renaming our qsort to pg_qsort to avoid this? (I'd be
>> inclined to do that via a macro "#define qsort pg_qsort", not by running
>> around and changing all the code.)
> Why not change each call site? I don't think it would hurt to be clear
> about the fact that we're calling our own sorting function, not the
> platform's libc qsort().
I'm concerned about the prospect of someone forgetting to use pg_qsort,
and getting the likely-inferior platform one.
However, the only place where we probably care very much is tuplesort.c,
and that's using qsort_arg now anyway. So plan C might be to drop
port/qsort.c altogether, and just be sure to use qsort_arg anyplace that
we care about not getting the platform one.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Crawford | 2006-10-19 18:12:12 | Re: CVS repository rsync |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2006-10-19 18:05:22 | Re: qsort vs MSVC build |