Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.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.
regards, tom lane