From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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: | 2019-08-09 00:41:15 |
Message-ID: | CAKJS1f_dFhYPmvEKkwhAzXcVNL0exZ=EVW1EVoYtfbJarxE71A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 04:24, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Perhaps there's an argument for doing something to change the behavior
> > of list_union and list_difference and friends. Not sure --- it could
> > be a foot-gun for back-patching. I'm already worried about the risk
> > of back-patching code that assumes the new semantics of list_concat.
> > (Which might be a good argument for renaming it to something else?
> > Just not list_union, please.)
>
> 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.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> [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.
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.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2019-08-09 00:52:15 | Re: POC: converting Lists into arrays |
Previous Message | Jeevan Ladhe | 2019-08-09 00:37:14 | Re: block-level incremental backup |