On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 07:49, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > A possibly controversial point is that I made list_qsort() sort the > given list in-place, rather than building a new list as it has > historically. For every single one of the existing and new callers, > copying the input list is wasteful, because they were just leaking > the input list anyway. But perhaps somebody feels that we should > preserve the "const input" property? I thought that changing the > function to return void, as done here, might be a good idea to > ensure that callers notice its API changed --- otherwise they'd > only get a warning about incompatible signature of the passed > function pointer, which they might not notice; in fact I'm not > totally sure all compilers would even give such a warning. > > If there's not complaints about that, I'm just going to go ahead > and push this --- it seems simple enough to not need much review.
The only thoughts I have so far here are that it's a shame that the function got called list_qsort() and not just list_sort(). I don't see why callers need to know anything about the sort algorithm that's being used. If we're going to break compatibility for this, should we rename the function too? -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
