Gregory Stark wrote:
> Attached is a small patch which fixes this case. It also makes the check
> slightly more liberal -- we don't need to resort if the previous sort was
> unbounded or the bound was greater than or equal to the new bound.
Huh, can you clarify this comment:
+ * XXX It would be nice to check tuplesortstate->boundUsed too but that
+ * seems like an abstraction violation. And for that matter to check
+ * the tuplesort to see if randomaccess is possible even if it wasn't
+ * requested so we don't resort input when the parameters haven't
+ * changed if it was sorted in memory.
I'm having serious trouble parsing it.
Thanks.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support