David Rowley <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> ... With list_concat() I find that pretty scary
> anyway. Using it means we can have a valid list that does not get it's
> length updated when someone appends a new item. Most users of that do
> list_copy() to sidestep that and other issues... which likely is
> something we'd want to rip out with Tom's patch.
Yeah, it's a bit OT for this patch, but I'd noticed the prevalence of
locutions like list_concat(list_copy(list1), list2), and been thinking
of proposing that we add some new primitives with, er, less ad-hoc
behavior. The patch at hand already changes the semantics of list_concat
in a somewhat saner direction, but I think there is room for a version
of list_concat that treats both its inputs as const Lists.
regards, tom lane
