Обсуждение: Obsolete reference to _bt_tuplecompare() within tuplesort.c
I found a reference made obsolete by commit 9e85183b, which is from way back in 2000. comparetup_index_btree() says: /* * This is similar to _bt_tuplecompare(), but we have already done the * index_getattr calls for the first column, and we need to keep track of * whether any null fields are present. Also see the special treatment * for equal keys at the end. */ I think that this comment should simply indicate that the routine is similar to comparetup_heap(), except that it takes care of the special tie-break stuff for B-Tree sorts, as well as enforcing uniqueness during unique index builds. It should not reference _bt_compare() at all (which is arguably the successor to _bt_tuplecompare()), since _bt_compare() is concerned with a bunch of stuff highly specific to the B-Tree implementation (e.g. having a hard-wired return value for comparisons involving the first data item on an internal page). -- Peter Geoghegan
On 10/10/2014 02:04 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > I found a reference made obsolete by commit 9e85183b, which is from > way back in 2000. > > comparetup_index_btree() says: > > /* > * This is similar to _bt_tuplecompare(), but we have already done the > * index_getattr calls for the first column, and we need to keep track of > * whether any null fields are present. Also see the special treatment > * for equal keys at the end. > */ > > I think that this comment should simply indicate that the routine is > similar to comparetup_heap(), except that it takes care of the special > tie-break stuff for B-Tree sorts, as well as enforcing uniqueness > during unique index builds. It should not reference _bt_compare() at > all (which is arguably the successor to _bt_tuplecompare()), since > _bt_compare() is concerned with a bunch of stuff highly specific to > the B-Tree implementation (e.g. having a hard-wired return value for > comparisons involving the first data item on an internal page). Yeah. Want to write that into a patch? - Heikki
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:58 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote: > Yeah. Want to write that into a patch? Attached. -- Peter Geoghegan
Вложения
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > Attached Have you looked at this? -- Peter Geoghegan
On 10/19/2014 11:29 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: >> Attached > > Have you looked at this? Committed now, thanks. - Heikki