From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, cedric(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [Review] Re: minor patch submission: CREATE CAST ... AS EXPLICIT |
Date: | 2013-07-08 19:15:40 |
Message-ID: | 51DB0FDC.2050002@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/24/2013 06:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> What about simply not using a keyword at that location at all? Something
>> like the attached hack?
> Generally speaking, I agree with Robert's objection. The patch in
> itself adds only one unnecessary keyword, which probably wouldn't be
> noticeable, but the argument for it implies that we should be willing
> to add a lot more equally-unnecessary keywords, which I'm not. gram.o
> is already about 10% of the entire postgres executable, which probably
> goes far towards explaining why its inner loop always shows up high in
> profiling: cache misses are routine. And the size of those tables is
> at least linear in the number of keywords --- perhaps worse than linear,
> I'm not sure. Adding a bunch of keywords *will* cost us in performance.
> I'm not willing to pay that cost for something that adds neither
> features nor spec compliance.
Where are we with this patch? Fabien, are you going to submit an
updated version which addresses the objections, or should I mark it
Returned With Feedback?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-07-08 19:17:37 | Re: Reduce maximum error in tuples estimation after vacuum. |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-07-08 19:09:25 | Re: Changing recovery.conf parameters into GUCs |