From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: POC: converting Lists into arrays |
Date: | 2019-08-12 15:25:37 |
Message-ID: | 5272.1565623537@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 04:24, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Has anyone got further thoughts about naming around list_concat
>> and friends?
>> If not, I'm inclined to go ahead with the concat-improvement patch as
>> proposed in [1], modulo the one improvement David spotted.
>> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6704.1563739305@sss.pgh.pa.us
> I'm okay with the patch once that one improvement is done.
Pushed with that fix.
> I think if we want to think about freeing the 2nd input List then we
> can do that in another commit. Removing the redundant list_copy()
> calls seems quite separate from that.
The reason I was holding off is that this patch obscures the distinction
between places that needed to preserve the second input (which were
doing list_copy on it) and those that didn't (and weren't). If somebody
wants to rethink the free-second-input business they'll now have to do
a bit of software archaeology to determine which calls to change. But
I don't think we're going to bother.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2019-08-12 16:02:50 | Re: Add "password_protocol" connection parameter to libpq |
Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2019-08-12 14:30:33 | Re: Add "password_protocol" connection parameter to libpq |