Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2021-11-06 18:32:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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
Done that way, then.
regards, tom lane
