Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: John Naylor <jcnaylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables)
Date: 2018-12-31 05:37:35
Message-ID: 1329.1546234655@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-12-29 16:59:52 -0500, John Naylor wrote:
>> I think 0001 with complete keyword lookup replacement is in decent
>> enough shape to post. Make check-world passes. A few notes and
>> caveats:

> I tried to take this for a spin, an for me the build fails because various
> frontend programs don't have KeywordOffsets/Strings defined, but reference it
> through various functions exposed to the frontend (like fmtId()). That I see
> that error but you don't is probably related to me using -fuse-ld=gold in
> CFLAGS.

I was just about to point out that the cfbot is seeing that too ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Surafel Temesgen 2018-12-31 05:57:59 Re: pg_dump multi VALUES INSERT
Previous Message Dilip Kumar 2018-12-31 05:34:13 Re: Undo worker and transaction rollback