Re: On disable_cost - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Richard Guo
Subject Re: On disable_cost
Date
Msg-id CAMbWs48RSWPEK9HOw6sFP2EmGfDQFztX2fKCU-asyJgPZmZ=mw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: On disable_cost  (Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: On disable_cost
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 5:27 PM Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 5:00 PM Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com> wrote:
> > static void
> > label_sort_with_costsize(PlannerInfo *root, Sort *plan, double limit_tuples)
> > {
> > ...
> >      cost_sort(&sort_path, root, NIL,
> >                lefttree->total_cost,
> >                plan->plan.disabled_nodes,
> >                lefttree->plan_rows,
> >                lefttree->plan_width,
> >                0.0,
> >                work_mem,
> >                limit_tuples);
> >
> > Given the cost_sort() declaration:
> > void
> > cost_sort(Path *path, PlannerInfo *root,
> >            List *pathkeys, int input_disabled_nodes,
> >            Cost input_cost, double tuples, int width,
> >            Cost comparison_cost, int sort_mem,
> >            double limit_tuples)
> >
> > Aren't the input_disabled_nodes and input_cost arguments swapped in the
> > above call?
>
> Nice catch!  I checked other callers to cost_sort, and they are all
> good.

Fixed.

Thanks
Richard



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: shveta malik
Date:
Subject: Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation
Next
From: "Andrey M. Borodin"
Date:
Subject: Re: Sort functions with specialized comparators