On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 04:24, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Perhaps there's an argument for doing something to change the behavior
> > of list_union and list_difference and friends. Not sure --- it could
> > be a foot-gun for back-patching. I'm already worried about the risk
> > of back-patching code that assumes the new semantics of list_concat.
> > (Which might be a good argument for renaming it to something else?
> > Just not list_union, please.)
>
> 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.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> [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.
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.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services