Re: tsearch parser overhaul

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, "Andres Freund" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Oleg Bartunov" <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru
Subject: Re: tsearch parser overhaul
Date: 2009-12-10 23:10:37
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> I'm inclined that it would be no more work to replace the current
> recursively called state engine with something easier to read and
> understand than to try to fix the current oddities. Perhaps
> something along the lines of this?:


> I suspect we'd need to get it to use the same regexp code used
> elsewhere in PostgreSQL.

We're certainly not going to start carrying two regexp engines,
so yeah ;-)

I guess if this is proposed as a replacement for the existing parser,
we'd need to see some speed comparisons. I have no idea at all which
is faster.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-12-10 23:19:21 Re: Python 3.1 support
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-12-10 22:59:01 Re: thread safety on clients