Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mendola Gaetano wrote:
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?
I
Mendola Gaetano wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mendola Gaetano wrote:
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
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
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
I'm improving the Dllist in these direction:
1) Avoid if statements in insertion/remove phase, for instance now the
AddHeader appear like this:
void
DLAddHead(Dllist *l, Dlelem *e)
{
Dlelem *where = l-dll_master_node-dle_next;
e-dle_next = where;
e-dle_prev = where-dle_prev;
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,
