Re: general purpose array_sort

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: Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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