David Rowley <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 04:24, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Has anyone got further thoughts about naming around list_concat >> and friends? >> If not, I'm inclined to go ahead with the concat-improvement patch as >> proposed in [1], modulo the one improvement David spotted. >> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6704.1563739...@sss.pgh.pa.us
> I'm okay with the patch once that one improvement is done. Pushed with that fix. > I think if we want to think about freeing the 2nd input List then we > can do that in another commit. Removing the redundant list_copy() > calls seems quite separate from that. The reason I was holding off is that this patch obscures the distinction between places that needed to preserve the second input (which were doing list_copy on it) and those that didn't (and weren't). If somebody wants to rethink the free-second-input business they'll now have to do a bit of software archaeology to determine which calls to change. But I don't think we're going to bother. regards, tom lane