Horton

Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-12-06T18:07:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Speed up conversion of signed integers to C strings.

  2. Remove some unnecessary tests of pgstat_track_counts.

  3. Remove cvs keywords from all files.

  4. Code cleanup for function prototypes: change two K&R-style prototypes

  5. Use Min() instead of min() in qsort, for consistency and to avoid

  6. pgindent run for 8.2.

  7. Switch over to using our own qsort() all the time, as has been proposed

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> OK.  Well, then pushing it out to a separate file probably makes
> sense.  Do you want to do that or shall I have a crack at it?  If the
> latter, what do you think about using the name SortKey for everything
> rather than SortSupport?

I'll take another crack at it.  I'm not entirely sold yet on merging
the two structs; I think first we'd better look and see what the needs
are in the other potential callers I mentioned.  If we'd end up
cluttering the struct with half a dozen weird fields, it'd be better to
stick to a minimal interface struct with various wrapper structs, IMO.

OTOH it did seem that the names were getting a bit long.  If we do
keep the two-struct-levels approach, what do you think of
s/SortSupportInfo/SortSupport/g ?

			regards, tom lane