From: | Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Inprise InterBase(R) 6.0 Now Free and Open Source |
Date: | 2000-07-26 05:56:12 |
Message-ID: | 397E7D7C.6FA4C5AE@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>
> > $ wc InterBase/dsql/parse.y
> > 4217 13639 103059 InterBase/dsql/parse.y
> > $ wc postgresql-7.0.2/src/backend/parser/gram.y
> > 5858 20413 149104 postgresql-7.0.2/src/backend/parser/gram.y
>
> Hmm. I suspect that I could shrink our gram.y by ~25% just by removing
> comments and C support routines, and by consolidating some execution
> blocks onto fewer lines. Does it look like their parse.y is more dense
> than ours, do they do a lot of postprocessing to eliminate the yacc
> rules, or have we missed the boat on writing the grammar in yacc?
>
> Just curious; I probably won't look myself since I don't want to run the
> risk of compromising our code and licensing. Or is that not an issue
> with the Inprise license?
I had a bit of a look. There's no obvious reason, just maybe postgres
has a few more comments and a bit more code inside the action blocks. No
obvious problem here.
It would be a pity if we can't look and learn from Interbase in this
instance, because this is one area where there is at least a possibility
of borrowing something useful.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Karel Zak | 2000-07-26 07:04:21 | Re: New Privilege model purposal |
Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-07-26 05:21:06 | Re: Inprise InterBase(R) 6.0 Now Free and Open Source |