Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writablevariables) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Fetter
Subject Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writablevariables)
Date
Msg-id 20181226163840.GE416@fetter.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
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? As I understand it, steps have been
made in this field since yacc was originally designed. Is LALR
actually suitable for languages like SQL, or is it just there for
historical reasons?

Best,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables)
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Shared Memory: How to use SYSV rather than MMAP ?