| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, John Naylor <jcnaylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables) |
| Date: | 2018-12-26 17:14:19 |
| Message-ID: | 30608.1545844459@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm kinda surprised that you haven't seen ScanKeywordLookup() in
> there, but I agree with you that the size of the main parser tables is
> a real issue, and that there's no easy solution. At various times
> there has been discussion of using some other parser generator, and
> I've also toyed with the idea of writing one specifically for
> PostgreSQL. Unfortunately, it seems like bison is all but
> unmaintained; the alternatives are immature and have limited adoption
> and limited community; and writing something from scratch is a ton of
> work. :-(
Yeah, and also: SQL is a damn big and messy language, and so it's not
very clear that it's really bison's fault that it's slow to parse.
We might do a ton of work to implement an alternative, and then find
ourselves no better off.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mitar | 2018-12-26 17:19:54 | Re: Feature: temporary materialized views |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-26 17:07:36 | Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables) |