On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> OK. Well, then pushing it out to a separate file probably makes
>> sense. Do you want to do that or shall I have a crack at it? If the
>> latter, what do you think about using the name SortKey for everything
>> rather than SortSupport?
>
> I'll take another crack at it. I'm not entirely sold yet on merging
> the two structs; I think first we'd better look and see what the needs
> are in the other potential callers I mentioned. If we'd end up
> cluttering the struct with half a dozen weird fields, it'd be better to
> stick to a minimal interface struct with various wrapper structs, IMO.
OK. I'll defer to whatever you come up with after looking at it.
> OTOH it did seem that the names were getting a bit long. If we do
> keep the two-struct-levels approach, what do you think of
> s/SortSupportInfo/SortSupport/g ?
+1. I had that thought when you originally suggested that name, but
it didn't seem worth arguing about.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
