On Thursday, October 11, 2012 06:37:59 PM Andres Freund wrote: > On Thursday, October 11, 2012 03:27:17 PM Andres Freund wrote: > > On Thursday, October 11, 2012 03:23:12 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Alvaro Herrera escribió: > > > > I also included two new functions in that patch, dlisti_push_head and > > > > dlisti_push_tail. These functions are identical to dlist_push_head > > > > and dlist_push_tail, except that they do not accept non-circular > > > > lists. What this means is that callers that find the non-circularity > > > > acceptable can use the regular version, and will run dlist_init() on > > > > demand; callers that want the super-tight code can use the other > > > > version. I didn't bother with a new dlist_is_empty. > > > > > > Is there any more input on this? At this point I would recommend > > > committing this patch _without_ these dlisti functions, i.e. we will > > > only have the functions that check for NULL-initialized dlists. We can > > > later discuss whether to include them or not (it would be a much > > > smaller patch and would not affect the existing functionality in any > > > way.) > > > > I can live with that. I didn't have a chance to look at the newest > > revision yet, will do that after I finish my first pass through foreign > > key locks. > > I looked at and I am happy enough ;) > > One thing: > I think you forgot to adjust dlist_reverse_foreach to the NULL list header.
Tom, whats your thought about Alvaro's latest version (except the "bug" mentioned above)? It looks like a somewhat fair compromise between our positions and I don't think the external interface needs to change if we decide to resolve any of our differences differently. Greetings, Andres -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
