Mendola Gaetano wrote: > "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Mendola Gaetano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I'm improving the Dllist in these direction: > > > > AFAIR, catcache.c is the *only* remaining backend customer for Dllist, > > and so any improvement for Dllist that breaks catcache is hardly an > > improvement, no? > > > > > 1) Avoid "if" statements in insertion/remove phase, for instance now the > > > AddHeader appear like this: > > > > <shrug> ... unless you can convert DLAddHead into a inline macro, > > I doubt there'll be any visible performance difference. > > > 2) Not using a malloc but using a "special" malloc that not perform > > > a malloc for each request but do a BIG malloc at first request... > > > > It would make more sense to migrate Dllist to use palloc. That's not > > compatible with its use in frontend libpq; I've been speculating about > > splitting off libpq to have a separate implementation instead of trying > > to share code. I believe libpq only uses Dllist for the > > pending-notify-events list, for which the code is poorly optimized > > anyway (we don't need a doubly-linked list for that).
I certainly would like to see Dllist removed too. > This mean that is waste of time work on dllist. > I seen that exist a TODO list about "features", > exist a list about: "code to optimize" ? What TODO item where you looking at? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
