| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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: | 2004-04-28 23:29:09 |
| Message-ID: | D9987284-996B-11D8-AC99-000A95AB279E@samurai.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 27-Apr-04, at 10:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
[ ... on the topic of list_union(), list_union_int() and friends ]
> I guess the real question in my mind is whether there is any true gain
> in symmetry or readability by doing it this way.
I think there's a small gain: everything else being equal, an API with
fewer functions is easier to use and easier to understand. If we can
provide a single function that takes the place of three functions
without losing anything, we ought to do so.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2004-04-29 01:11:45 | Re: Arbitrary precision modulo operation |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2004-04-28 23:22:10 | Re: linked list rewrite |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-04-29 00:02:25 | Re: PITR Phase 2 - Design Planning |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2004-04-28 23:22:10 | Re: linked list rewrite |