On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Thomas Munro
<thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Thomas Munro
>> <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>> I think we should take the hint in the comments and make it O(1)
>>> anyway. See attached draft patch.
>>
>> Alternatively, here is a shorter and sweeter dlist version (I did the
>> open-coded one thinking of theoretical back-patchability).
>
> ... though, on second thoughts, the dlist version steam-rolls over the
> possibility that it might not be in the list (mentioned in the
> comments, though it's not immediately clear how that would happen).
>
> On further reflection, on the basis that it's the most conservative
> change, +1 for Fujii-san's close-in-reverse-order idea. We should
> reconsider that data structure for 12
+1
Attached is v3 patch which I implemented close-in-reverse-order idea
on v2.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao