| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: inefficient loop in StandbyReleaseLockList() |
| Date: | 2021-11-05 02:40:00 |
| Message-ID: | YYSZgNdteRBtfyLR@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 08:21:56PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > I wonder if it's worth adding a note to list_delete_first() mentioning its
> > O(N) behaviour. It's not immediately visible from the code, and from the list
> > name one could very well be excused to not be worried about O(N) costs.
>
> Hm. I think it's not the only list function with O(N) behavior;
> in fact there used to be more such functions than there are now.
> But I could get behind a patch that annotates all of them.
Documenting that makes sense. Shouldn't we be careful to do that in
both pg_list.h and list.c, then?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-11-05 02:47:20 | Re: Teach pg_receivewal to use lz4 compression |
| Previous Message | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2021-11-05 02:15:23 | RE: parallel vacuum comments |