| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone? |
| Date: | 2000-01-19 20:19:54 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0001192117280.5544-200000@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2000-01-18, Tom Lane mentioned:
> I agree with Don that the performance benefit is likely to be
> unmeasurable. Still, there could be a win: we currently have to modify
> keywords.c by hand every time we have to add/delete a keyword. Does
> gperf offer any aid for maintaining the keyword list? If so, that'd
> be sufficient reason to switch to it...
That's a good point. It would allow you much more ordering freedom. The
file is attached for review. Of course adding/deleting keywords would now
require gperf. :(
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| keywords.gperf | text/plain | 5.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-01-19 20:22:02 | Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-01-19 20:12:25 | Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone? |