From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, 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 21:58:22 |
Message-ID: | 4522DCFE.6010101@paradise.net.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
>> Given the time that has been spent working around
>> the braindamaged behavior of qsort() on various platforms, I would be
>> more inclined to *always* use our qsort() instead of the platform's
>> version.
>
> I've been heard to argue against that in the past, but I'm beginning to
> see the merit of the idea. One good reason for doing it is that we
> could stop worrying about the possibility of large-scale memory leaks
> due to erroring out of glibc's qsort --- in particular it would be OK
> to add CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS into the comparison callback as was
> requested recently.
>
I think this is a great idea - having predictable sort performance on
all platforms makes a lot of sense.
Cheers
Mark
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-03 22:28:14 | Re: tsearch2 error msg |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-03 21:55:52 | Re: PG qsort vs. Solaris |