Re: linked list rewrite

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: linked list rewrite
Date: 2004-03-24 03:31:30
Message-ID: 10112.1080099090@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On 23-Mar-04, at 7:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, lcons is one of the names that I think we should stick with on
>> historical grounds. It's widely used in the backend and it has the
>> right connotations for anyone who's ever used Lisp.

> I think it has exactly the *wrong* connotations: the name suggests that
> it creates a new cons cell (along with the ensuing implications about
> performance and the internal implementation of the list), which is no
> longer the case.

How do you mean it's no longer the case? ListCell looks exactly like a
cons cell to me.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message glenn 2004-03-24 04:10:24 ole db
Previous Message Marc G. Fournier 2004-03-24 03:03:03 subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-03-24 03:40:33 Re: PANIC: hash table "Shared Buffer Lookup Table" corrupted
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-03-24 03:30:17 Re: bug in 7.4 SET WITHOUT OIDs