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: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 19:03:57
Message-ID: 4585.1545851037@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:
> My bet is, and has been for quite a while, that we'll have to go for a
> hand-written recursive descent type parser.

I will state right up front that that will happen over my dead body.

It's impossible to write correct RD parsers by hand for any but the most
trivial, conflict-free languages, and what we have got to deal with
is certainly neither of those; moreover, it's a constantly moving target.
We'd be buying into an endless landscape of parser bugs if we go that way.
It's *not* worth it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-12-26 19:08:34 Re: removal of dangling temp tables
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-12-26 18:57:49 Re: Shared Memory: How to use SYSV rather than MMAP ?