From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Introduce list_reverse() to make lcons() usage less inefficient |
Date: | 2023-02-20 09:51:40 |
Message-ID: | CAApHDvoVn51T=y8Ty02SnC9m-rh_yuKUaZQknBugCsGqK9FdoA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 at 16:35, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 at 13:23, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > But wouldn't an even cheaper way here be to iterate over the children in
> > reverse order when match_partition_order_desc? We can do that efficiently
> > now. Looks like we don't have a readymade helper for it, but it'd be easy
> > enough to add or open code.
>
> That seems fair. I think open coding is a better option. I had a go
> at foreach_reverse recently and decided to keep clear of it due to
> behavioural differences with foreach_delete_current().
I've pushed a patch for this now. Thank you for the idea.
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-02-20 09:52:14 | Re: File API cleanup |
Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2023-02-20 09:51:30 | Re: wrong query result due to wang plan |