Re: Inprise InterBase(R) 6.0 Now Free and Open Source - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Chris Bitmead
Subject Re: Inprise InterBase(R) 6.0 Now Free and Open Source
Date
Msg-id 397E7D7C.6FA4C5AE@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Inprise InterBase(R) 6.0 Now Free and Open Source  (Joe Brenner <doom@kzsu.stanford.edu>)
Responses Re: Inprise InterBase(R) 6.0 Now Free and Open Source  (Joe Brenner <doom@kzsu.stanford.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> 
> > $ wc InterBase/dsql/parse.y
> >     4217   13639  103059 InterBase/dsql/parse.y
> > $ wc postgresql-7.0.2/src/backend/parser/gram.y
> >     5858   20413  149104 postgresql-7.0.2/src/backend/parser/gram.y
> 
> Hmm. I suspect that I could shrink our gram.y by ~25% just by removing
> comments and C support routines, and by consolidating some execution
> blocks onto fewer lines. Does it look like their parse.y is more dense
> than ours, do they do a lot of postprocessing to eliminate the yacc
> rules, or have we missed the boat on writing the grammar in yacc?
> 
> Just curious; I probably won't look myself since I don't want to run the
> risk of compromising our code and licensing. Or is that not an issue
> with the Inprise license?

I had a bit of a look. There's no obvious reason, just maybe postgres
has a few more comments and a bit more code inside the action blocks. No
obvious problem here.

It would be a pity if we can't look and learn from Interbase in this
instance, because this is one area where there is at least a possibility
of borrowing something useful.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Installation Report for powerpc-apple-netbsdelf1.5
Next
From: Karel Zak
Date:
Subject: Re: New Privilege model purposal