Re: general purpose array_sort

From: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: 2024-10-30 13:29:00
Message-ID: CAJ7c6TMgG5iZtpU7RydpwkF37vDYQEuay_dDEYs=6TaCi5ttiw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

Thanks for the updated patch set.

> > > +Datum
> > > +array_sort_order(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
> > > +{
> > > + return array_sort(fcinfo);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +Datum
> > > +array_sort_order_nulls_first(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
> > > +{
> > > + return array_sort(fcinfo);
> > > +}
> >
> > Any reason not to specify array_sort in pg_proc.dat?
>
> It is specified in 0001 (see oid => '8810').

What I meant was that I don't think these wrapper functions are
needed. I think you can just do:

```
+{ oid => '8811', descr => 'sort array',
+ proname => 'array_sort', prorettype => 'anyarray',
+ proargtypes => 'anyarray bool', prosrc => 'array_sort'}, <--
array_sort is used directly in `prosrc`
```

... unless I'm missing something.

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2024-10-30 13:58:30 Re: AIO writes vs hint bits vs checksums
Previous Message Nikita Malakhov 2024-10-30 13:23:01 Re: detoast datum into the given buffer as a optimization.