Hello, Heikki. Thank you for your attention to this patch!
> This also seems to change the API so that instead of a single > rb_begin_iterate()+rb_iterate() pair, there is a separate begin and > iterate function for each traversal order. That seems like an unrelated > change. Was there a particular reason for that? I think the old > rb_begin_iterate()+rb_iterate() functions were fine, we just need to > have a RBTreeIterator struct that's different from the tree itself. I'm trying to avoid calling procedures by a pointer, an old habit. When I started to work on this patch I just needed a RB-tree implementation for a pet project. I took one from PostgreSQL code. Then I found this flaw of iteration interface and decided to fix it. The idea to merge this fix back to PostgreSQL code appeared later so I just wrote code the way I like. These days code performance depends on many factors like whether code fits into cache, i.e not only on whether you call a procedure directly or using a pointer. Until someone finds a real bottleneck here I think current rb_begin_iterate()+rb_iterate() interface should do just fine. > Another unrelated change in this patch is the addition of > rb_rightmost(). It's not used for anything, so I'm not sure what the > point is. Then again, there don't seem to be any callers of > rb_leftmost() either. It's just something I needed in tests to reach a good percent of code coverage. Implementation of rb_rightmost is trivial so we probably can do without it. > I think we should something like in the attached patch. It seems to pass > your test suite, but I haven't done any other testing on this. Does it > look OK to you? Looks good to me. -- Best regards, Aleksander Alekseev -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers