Re: Some new list.c primitives

From: Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Some new list.c primitives
Date: 2005-07-28 00:06:46
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.58.0507281002130.32074@linuxworld.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Tom Lane wrote:

> Neil (or anyone else with an opinion),
>
> I'm finding several uses in the planner for some new List primitives
> defined as below. I'd like to push these into list.c, but before that,
> has anyone got any serious objections? How about suggestions for better
> names?

list_add() doesn't really describe what it does. I was thinking either
list_cond_add() or list_merge().

I think list_add_all is also ambiguous. What about list_merge_all() or,
even, list_merge_list()?

Gavin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-07-28 00:12:10 Re: Sanity Check?
Previous Message Marc G. Fournier 2005-07-27 23:48:38 Re: ORDER BY <field not in return list>