Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
>
I think this is a great idea - having predictable sort performance on
all platforms makes a lot of sense.
Cheers
Mark
