Re: clearing opfuncid vs. parallel query

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: YUriy Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: clearing opfuncid vs. parallel query
Date: 2015-10-22 18:37:24
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYR4TsEGbeKqX0eZU13LMe3Abtq+TM0bLyUMNXcixmq3Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:40 PM, YUriy Zhuravlev
<u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> On Thursday 22 October 2015 13:25:52 you wrote:
>> It would be more useful, if we're going to autogenerate code,
> Are we going to use autogenerate code?

I thought that's what you were proposing. Process the struct
definitions and emit .c files.

>> to do it from the actual struct definitions.
> I can gen xml/json from actual struct. I offered XML/JSON as the analysis of C
> code much more difficult. But my current generator just use the structure from
> the header files (by pycparser).

Anything that is part of the build process will have to be done in C or Perl.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-10-22 18:49:31 Re: make Gather node projection-capable
Previous Message dinesh kumar 2015-10-22 18:25:23 Re: [PATCH] SQL function to report log message