| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PG qsort vs. Solaris |
| Date: | 2006-10-03 21:02:25 |
| Message-ID: | 11108.1159909345@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 Tue, 2006-10-03 at 15:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 1. Switch to using port/qsort.c all the time.
>> 2. Add a "qsort_arg" function that is identical to qsort except it also
>> passes a void pointer through to the comparison function. This will
>> allow us to get rid of the non-reentrant static variable and extra
>> level of function call in tuplesort.c.
>> 3. Insert a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() call as was requested back in July.
>> With glibc out of the way, there's no longer a reason to fear memory
>> leakage from cancelling a sort.
> +1 from me.
> I can implement this (for 8.3, naturally), unless you'd prefer to do it
> yourself.
I was planning to do it right now, on the grounds that #2 and #3 are bug
fixes, and that fixing the existing memory leakage hazard is a good
thing too.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2006-10-03 21:03:59 | Re: PG qsort vs. Solaris |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-10-03 20:59:55 | Re: tsearch2 error msg |