Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From James Coleman
Subject Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)
Date
Msg-id CAAaqYe8rav8Un4K_NxXrH8JP-nnvBbppKPjTJjJKfLndsvWKbQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 10:09 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 9:46 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> I think the correct fix is to change the enum declaration.
>
> > Hmm. I don't actually really like that, because it means the value
> > here isn't actually semantically correct. That is, the sort type is
> > not "in progress"; it's "we never started a sort at all".
>
> Well, yeah, but that pre-dated this patch, and right now is no
> time to improve it; we can debate such fine points at more leisure
> once the buildfarm isn't broken.

Fair enough. Unsure if Tomas is still online to comment and/or push,
but reverting SORT_TYPE_STILL_IN_PROGRESS back to 0 works for me as an
initial fix.

> Obviously the comment needs fixed...

The one in show_short_info?

I can work on that (and the other proposed cleanup above) with Tomas
tomorrow or later.

James



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL usage calculation patch