From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Some regular-expression performance hacking |
Date: | 2021-02-23 18:22:35 |
Message-ID: | 3877169.1614104555@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2021-02-23 12:52:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... It is annoying to have to expend
>> an always-on check for a can't-happen case, though.
> Wouldn't quite work like that because of the restrictions of what pg
> infrastructure we want to expose the regex engine to, but a
> if (depth < 0)
> pg_unreachable();
> would avoid the runtime overhead and does fix the warning.
Yeah, I still have dreams of someday converting the regex engine
into an independent project, so I don't want to make it depend on
pg_unreachable. I'll put in the low-tech fix.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-02-23 18:36:16 | Re: Some regular-expression performance hacking |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-02-23 18:18:51 | Re: Some regular-expression performance hacking |