| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: plpgsql versus long ELSIF chains |
| Date: | 2011-10-27 16:49:38 |
| Message-ID: | 4EA98BA2.5070209@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 27.10.2011 19:18, Tom Lane wrote:
> So really what needs to be done here is to make ELSIF chains explicit in
> the parsetree representation, and handle them via looping not recursion
> at runtime. This will also make it a lot easier to do the grammar via
> left-recursion.
>
> So I'm going to go off and do that, but I wonder whether anyone thinks
> this is sufficiently important to back-patch.
This doesn't look like a bug to me, just an unoptimal implementation. So
-1 for backpatching.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-10-27 17:27:51 | Re: Hot Standby startup with overflowed snapshots |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-10-27 16:37:41 | Re: plpgsql versus long ELSIF chains |