| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: linked list rewrite |
| Date: | 2004-03-24 03:31:30 |
| Message-ID: | 10112.1080099090@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On 23-Mar-04, at 7:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, lcons is one of the names that I think we should stick with on
>> historical grounds. It's widely used in the backend and it has the
>> right connotations for anyone who's ever used Lisp.
> I think it has exactly the *wrong* connotations: the name suggests that
> it creates a new cons cell (along with the ensuing implications about
> performance and the internal implementation of the list), which is no
> longer the case.
How do you mean it's no longer the case? ListCell looks exactly like a
cons cell to me.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | glenn | 2004-03-24 04:10:24 | ole db |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-03-24 03:03:03 | subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-24 03:40:33 | Re: PANIC: hash table "Shared Buffer Lookup Table" corrupted |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-24 03:30:17 | Re: bug in 7.4 SET WITHOUT OIDs |