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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, John Naylor <jcnaylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, "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: 2018-12-26 17:07:36
Message-ID: 30347.1545844056@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 11:22:39AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In my hands, the only part of the low-level parsing code that
>> commonly shows up as interesting in profiles is the Bison engine.

> Should we be considering others?

We've looked around before, IIRC, and not really seen any arguably
better tools.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-12-26 17:14:19 Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables)
Previous Message Mitar 2018-12-26 17:07:22 Re: Feature: triggers on materialized views