On 2021-11-06 18:32:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2021-11-06 14:06:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> + * Note that this takes time proportional to the length of the list, > >> + * since the remaining entries must be moved. > >> */ > >> List * > >> list_delete_first(List *list) > > > Perhaps we could point to list_delete_last()? But it's an improvement > > without > > that too. > > Good point. The note at list_delete_last that it's O(1) isn't really > on point --- instead, the text for list_delete_first should be like > > + * Note that this takes time proportional to the length of the list, > + * since the remaining entries must be moved. Consider reversing the > + * list order so that you can use list_delete_last() instead. However, > + * if that causes you to replace lappend() with lcons(), you haven't > + * improved matters.
LGTM
