Tom Lane wrote:
> How about list_append_distinct and list_concat_distinct?
Those names are fine with me.
list_append_unique and list_concat_unique might be a little clearer, unless you want to retain the sqlism of distinct.
On 7/28/05, Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
list_append_unique and list_concat_unique might be a little clearer, unless you want to retain the sqlism of distinct.
list_append_unique and list_concat_unique might be a little clearer, unless you want to retain the sqlism of distinct.
- Re: [HACKERS] Some new list.c primitives Thomas Swan
