On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 11:10:01AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, I spent some time looking at the problem, and it seems the issue
> is not overrun of any bison internal table, but failure to compress the
> resulting "action table" into 32K entries. This means that the required
Ouch! This of course is not so much a problem for ecpg but for the
backend should we run into the problem there too.
> ...
> Also, it seemed to me that the most leverage on the size of the
> compressed action table would be gained by reducing the number of
> terminal symbols, more so than the number of rules. Dunno if there
> is a lot you can do about that, but it's a thought.
Will look at it.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael@Fam-Meskes.De
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire!
Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
