Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 9:24 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Every time this has come up, I've opined that the right fix is to jack
>> up the List API and drive a new implementation underneath, as we did
>> once before (cf commit d0b4399d81).
> I'm not really convinced that this is the way to go. The thing is,
> any third-party code people have that uses a List may simply break.
> If you kept the existing List and changed a bunch of existing code to
> use a new Vector implementation, or Thomas's SimpleVector stuff, then
> that wouldn't happen.
I'm not following your point here. If we change key data structures
(i.e. parsetrees, plan trees, execution trees) to use some other list-ish
API, that *in itself* breaks everything that accesses those data
structures. The approach I propose here isn't zero-breakage, but it
requires far fewer places to be touched than a complete API replacement
would do.
Just as with the dlist/slist stuff, inventing a new list API might be
acceptable for all-new data structures that didn't exist before, but
it isn't going to really help for code and data structures that've been
around for decades.
> If you could
> replace the existing implementation without breaking any code, that
> would be a no-brainer but there's no real way to do that and get the
> performance benefits you're seeking to obtain.
Yup. So are you saying that we'll never redesign parsetrees again?
We break things regularly, as long as the cost/benefit justifies it.
> It is also perhaps worth mentioning that reimplementing a List as an
> array means that it is... not a list. That is a pretty odd state of
> affairs, and to me is another sign that we want to leave the existing
> thing alone and convert some/most/all core code to use a new thing.
I completely disagree. Your proposal is probably an order of magnitude
more painful than the approach I suggest here, while not really offering
any additional performance benefit (or if you think there would be some,
you haven't explained how). Strictly on cost/benefit grounds, it isn't
ever going to happen that way.
regards, tom lane
