| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: POC: converting Lists into arrays |
| Date: | 2019-07-16 16:01:38 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobW8_+MfoJyjS1U9c1M8v7NOOyo4aM3v4SJXku4WE7ung@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:44 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> writes:
> > On 7/15/19 11:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> >>> The only thoughts I have so far here are that it's a shame that the
> >>> function got called list_qsort() and not just list_sort().
>
> > I agree with David -- list_sort() is better. I don't think "sort" is
> > such a common stem that searching is a big issue, especially with modern
> > code indexing tools.
>
> OK, I'm outvoted, will do it that way.
I cast my vote in the other direction i.e. for sticking with qsort.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-07-16 16:04:17 | Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs |
| Previous Message | Nikita Glukhov | 2019-07-16 15:50:22 | Re: fix for BUG #3720: wrong results at using ltree |