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

John Naylor <jcnaylor(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 12/17/18, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Also, wouldn't we also adopt this technology for its unreserved keywords,
>> too?

> We wouldn't be forced to, but there might be other reasons to do so.
> Were you thinking of code consistency (within pl_scanner.c or
> globally)? Or something else?

> If we did adopt this setup for plpgsql unreserved keywords,
> ecpg/preproc/ecpg_keywords.c and ecpg/preproc/c_keywords.c would be
> left using the current ScanKeyword struct for search. Using offset
> search for all 5 types of keywords would be globally consistent, but
> it also means additional headers, generated headers, and makefile
> rules.

I'd be kind of inclined to convert all uses of ScanKeyword to the new way,
if only for consistency's sake. On the other hand, I'm not the one
volunteering to do the work.

regards, tom lane