Commit c86c2d9d authored by Heikki Linnakangas's avatar Heikki Linnakangas

Update comment.

mergepreread()/mergeprereadone() don't exist anymore, the function that
does roughly the same is now called mergereadnext().
parent 61633f79
...@@ -3083,14 +3083,14 @@ dumpbatch(Tuplesortstate *state, bool alltuples) ...@@ -3083,14 +3083,14 @@ dumpbatch(Tuplesortstate *state, bool alltuples)
* a call with no subsequent run actually written to destTape), we prefer * a call with no subsequent run actually written to destTape), we prefer
* to write out a 0 tuple run. * to write out a 0 tuple run.
* *
* mergepreread()/mergeprereadone() are prepared for 0 tuple runs, and * mergereadnext() is prepared for 0 tuple runs, and will reliably mark
* will reliably mark the tape inactive for the merge when called from * the tape inactive for the merge when called from beginmerge(). This
* beginmerge(). This case is therefore similar to the case where * case is therefore similar to the case where mergeonerun() finds a dummy
* mergeonerun() finds a dummy run for the tape, and so doesn't need to * run for the tape, and so doesn't need to merge a run from the tape (or
* merge a run from the tape (or conceptually "merges" the dummy run, if * conceptually "merges" the dummy run, if you prefer). According to
* you prefer). According to Knuth, Algorithm D "isn't strictly optimal" * Knuth, Algorithm D "isn't strictly optimal" in its method of
* in its method of distribution and dummy run assignment; this edge case * distribution and dummy run assignment; this edge case seems very
* seems very unlikely to make that appreciably worse. * unlikely to make that appreciably worse.
*/ */
Assert(state->status == TSS_BUILDRUNS); Assert(state->status == TSS_BUILDRUNS);
......
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment