From: | Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, "andreas(at)proxel(dot)se" <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: general purpose array_sort |
Date: | 2024-10-25 12:02:02 |
Message-ID: | CAEG8a3LUu3O8KPPWV0naaKyXFXMv9qhEuRf1TYKt7p9cLOYvRg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 1:19 AM Aleksander Alekseev
<aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > I can accept this outcome though an optional three-valued boolean sort order (ascending and descending only) I'd argue is worth keeping. null value placement too I guess, three-valued boolean (nulls_first).
>
> Perhaps these optional arguments deserve separate discussions. I
> suggest merging something everyone agrees on first. This will simplify
> the review process and allow us to deliver value to the users quickly.
> Arguments like `reverse => true` and `nulls_first => true` can always
> be implemented and added as separate patches.
As this patch uses the tuplesort infrastructure, we need to supply the
sortOperator, sortCollation and nullsFirstFlag, I tend to agree with
David. I admit that the parsing part is not good, so I will remove it
by using two boolean parameters Jian suggested earlier.
Will send out another version by tomorrow.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Aleksander Alekseev
--
Regards
Junwang Zhao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2024-10-25 12:30:24 | Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning |
Previous Message | Andrey M. Borodin | 2024-10-25 12:01:21 | Re: Using read_stream in index vacuum |