Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Updatable views/with check option parsing

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, kleptog(at)svana(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Updatable views/with check option parsing
Date: 2006-05-26 23:26:44
Message-ID: 2633.1148686004@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> "The GLR parsers require a compiler for ISO C89 or later. In
>> addition, they use the inline keyword, which is not C89, but is C99
>> and is a common extension in pre-C99 compilers. It is up to the user
>> of these parsers to handle portability issues."

> We already use inline, or handle its nonexistence, respectively.

Yeah, I don't see anything in that statement that we don't assume
already.  The interesting question to me is how much different is
GLR from garden-variety bison; in particular, what's the parser
performance like?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert TreatDate: 2006-05-26 23:32:14
Subject: Re: max(*)
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-05-26 23:23:20
Subject: Re: Question about "name" datatype

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group