From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: embedded list v2 |
Date: | 2012-06-28 19:57:26 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob9yJj8fHD4HtqbROo_EDcHSqH11ejvLQ7q+0o84Vft3g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Andres Freund's message of jue jun 28 14:20:59 -0400 2012:
>
>> Looks good now?
>
> The one thing I dislike about this code is the names you've chosen. I
> mean, ilist_s_stuff and ilist_d_stuff. I mean, why not just Slist_foo
> and Dlist_bar, say? As far as I can tell, you've chosen the "i" prefix
> because it's "integrated" or "inline", but this seems to me a rather
> irrelevant implementation detail that's of little use to the callers.
>
> Also, I don't find so great an idea to have everything in a single file.
> Is there anything wrong with separating singly and doubly linked lists
> each to its own file? Other than you not liking it, I mean. As a
> person who spends some time trying to untangle header dependencies, I
> would appreciate keeping stuff as lean as possible. However, since
> nobody else seems to have commented on this, maybe it's just me.
Well, it's not JUST you. I agree entirely with all of your points.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2012-06-28 20:02:33 | Re: We probably need autovacuum_max_wraparound_workers |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-06-28 19:55:54 | Re: Uh, I change my mind about commit_delay + commit_siblings (sort of) |