On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Uh, why? It's not a large amount of code and it seems like removing
> it puts a fair-size hole in the symmetry of tuplesort's capabilities.
It's not a small amount of code either.
Removing the code clarifies the division of labor between COPYTUP()
routines in general, their callers (tuplesort_putheaptuple() and
tuplesort_puttupleslot() -- which are also puttuple_common() callers),
and routines that are similar to those caller routines (in that they
at least call puttuple_common()) that do not call COPYTUP()
(tuplesort_putdatum(), and now tuplesort_putindextuplevalues()).
I believe that this has value. All the extra boilerplate code misleads.
--
Peter Geoghegan
