"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).
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" ? Regards Gaetano Mendola ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
