David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 04:24, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Has anyone got further thoughts about naming around list_concat
>> and friends?
>> If not, I'm inclined to go ahead with the concat-improvement patch as
>> proposed in [1], modulo the one improvement David spotted.
>> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6704.1563739305@sss.pgh.pa.us
> I'm okay with the patch once that one improvement is done.
Pushed with that fix.
> I think if we want to think about freeing the 2nd input List then we
> can do that in another commit. Removing the redundant list_copy()
> calls seems quite separate from that.
The reason I was holding off is that this patch obscures the distinction
between places that needed to preserve the second input (which were
doing list_copy on it) and those that didn't (and weren't). If somebody
wants to rethink the free-second-input business they'll now have to do
a bit of software archaeology to determine which calls to change. But
I don't think we're going to bother.
regards, tom lane
