Mendola Gaetano wrote:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Mendola Gaetano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I'm improving the Dllist in these direction:
> > AFAIR, catcache.c is the *only* remaining backend customer for Dllist,
> > and so any improvement for Dllist that breaks catcache is hardly an
> > improvement, no?
> > > 1) Avoid "if" statements in insertion/remove phase, for instance now the
> > > AddHeader appear like this:
> > <shrug> ... unless you can convert DLAddHead into a inline macro,
> > I doubt there'll be any visible performance difference.
> > > 2) Not using a malloc but using a "special" malloc that not perform
> > > a malloc for each request but do a BIG malloc at first request...
> > It would make more sense to migrate Dllist to use palloc. That's not
> > compatible with its use in frontend libpq; I've been speculating about
> > splitting off libpq to have a separate implementation instead of trying
> > to share code. I believe libpq only uses Dllist for the
> > pending-notify-events list, for which the code is poorly optimized
> > anyway (we don't need a doubly-linked list for that).
I certainly would like to see Dllist removed too.
> This mean that is waste of time work on dllist.
> I seen that exist a TODO list about "features",
> exist a list about: "code to optimize" ?
What TODO item where you looking at?
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings