Re: [PATCH] binary heap implementation

At 2012-11-20 22:55:52 -0500, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
>
> BTW, I probably missed some context upthread, but why do we have two
> fields at all?

I would also have preferred to handle the nodeMergeAppend case using a
context pointer as you suggest, but Andres needs to store two pointers
in his heap nodes.

Andres: suppose we replace binaryheap_node with just a Datum, could you
live with storing a pointer to a struct with two pointers? If so, that
would address the concerns raised.

If not, maybe we should explore Robert's earlier suggestion to make
binaryheap_node user-definable (in effect).

-- Abhijit