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 CAAaqYe_JQbMWGJmfvUAE-gHE61zbcNJ2s=JarBTBXOH-gwae2w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)  (James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)  ("Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>)
Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
List pgsql-hackers
It seems like the consensus over at another discussion on this topic
[1] is that we ought to go ahead and print the zeros [for machine
readable output formats], even though that creates some interesting
scenarios like the fact that disk sorts will print 0 for memory even
though that's not true.

The change has already been made and pushed for hash disk spilling, so
I think we ought to use Justin's patch here.

James

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2276865.1593102811%40sss.pgh.pa.us



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Artur Zakirov
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix GIN index search sometimes losing results
Next
From: James Coleman
Date:
Subject: Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code