On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 at 03:17, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > David Rowley <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > Comments on the design are welcome, but I was too late to the > > commitfest, so there are other priorities. However, if you have a > > strong opinion, feel free to voice it. > > I do not like replacing Lists piecemeal; that's a recipe for ongoing > API breakage and back-patching pain. Plus we'll then have *four* > different linked-list implementations in the backend, which sure > seems like too many. > > We've jacked up the List API and driven a new implementation underneath > once before. Maybe it's time to do that again.
(reviving this old thread as it's still on my list of things to work on) How would you feel if I submitted a patch that changed all locations where we test for an empty list with: if (list) or if (list == NIL) to a more standard form of if (list_is_empty(list)) ? The idea here is that I'd like a way to preallocate memory for a list to a given size before we start populating it, and that flies in the face of how we currently test for list emptiness. Such a macro could be backpatched to assist extensions. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
