Re: Proposal: syntax of operation with tsearch's configuration

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: syntax of operation with tsearch's configuration
Date: 2006-11-17 20:34:34
Message-ID: 19601.1163795674@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I also think the "thousands of lines" is an exaggeration :-)

I think a reasonable comparison point is the operator-class commands,
which are at least in the same general ballpark of complexity.
opclasscmds.c is currently 1075 lines, and that's not counting the
grammar additions, nor miscellaneous bits of support in places like
backend/nodes/, dependency.c if you expect to be able to DROP the
objects, namespace.c if they live in schemas, aclchk.c if they have
owners or permissions, comment.c, etc. Teodor is proposing to add not
one but four new kinds of system objects. In round numbers I would
bet that such a patch will add a lot closer to 10000 lines than 1000.

It may be worth doing anyway --- certainly CREATE OPERATOR CLASS was a
huge improvement over the previous ways of doing it --- but don't
underestimate the size of what we're talking about.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2006-11-17 20:42:37 Re: Proposal: syntax of operation with tsearch's configuration
Previous Message Jeremy Drake 2006-11-17 20:30:45 Re: Proposal: syntax of operation with tsearch's configuration