| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: add label to enum syntax |
| Date: | 2010-10-26 15:00:02 |
| Message-ID: | 24884.1288105202@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of mar oct 26 10:54:59 -0300 2010:
>> Unlike the other suggestions, ELEMENT is not currently a keyword. That
>> doesn't rule it out entirely, but it's a factor worth consideration.
> It can be added as an unreserved keyword, as in the attached patch.
> I also like ELEMENT better than the other suggestions, so I'm gonna
> commit this unless there are objections.
I definitely vote *against* adding a new keyword for this, unreserved or
otherwise. Every keyword we add bloats the bison parser by some
fractional amount, costing performance across the board.
While I'm not very thrilled with LABEL, it at least has the virtue that
we already paid the price for it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Leonardo Francalanci | 2010-10-26 15:08:20 | Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-10-26 14:43:04 | Re: add label to enum syntax |