Re: Representation of index clause lists

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Thoughts either way?

> OidFunctionCall11? How about making a struct out of some or all of
> those arguments and passing that?

Well, that was what I meant by the allusion to IndexPath --- I'm
inclined to pass "root" and "indexpath" as the only input arguments,
with the other inputs being found in the path struct. (Hm, maybe
"outer_rel" would have to remain separate too.) I guess we could
also think about merging the four output parameters into one output
struct, but I'm less excited about that since it would involve inventing
a struct that's not used otherwise.

> What about using arrays rather than Lists?

I think lists are more convenient to work with and iterate over, as long
as you only need iteration and not random access, which is the case here
AFAICS. In particular, if we changed to arrays then we'd have to
reinvent assorted operations like list_union that are currently used on
these lists, and I don't see any bang for the buck there.

regards, tom lane