Re: Red-black trees: why would anyone want preorder or postorder traversal?

From: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Victor Drobny <v(dot)drobny(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: Red-black trees: why would anyone want preorder or postorder traversal?
Date: 2017-09-10 14:18:00
Message-ID: CAPpHfduTcfYg26MReJtx3UvAz+yieRvdme=QnN2GGWqAUC_WpQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> In short, therefore, I propose we rip out the DirectWalk and InvertedWalk
> options along with their support code, and then drop the portions of
> test_rbtree that are needed to exercise them. Any objections?
>

+1,
I don't see any point in leaving DirectWalk and InvertedWalk in RB-tree.

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2017-09-10 16:14:02 Re: DROP SUBSCRIPTION hangs if sub is disabled in the same transaction
Previous Message Dmitry Dolgov 2017-09-10 09:29:13 Re: log_destination=file