On 06/24/2013 06:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> What about simply not using a keyword at that location at all? Something >> like the attached hack? > Generally speaking, I agree with Robert's objection. The patch in > itself adds only one unnecessary keyword, which probably wouldn't be > noticeable, but the argument for it implies that we should be willing > to add a lot more equally-unnecessary keywords, which I'm not. gram.o > is already about 10% of the entire postgres executable, which probably > goes far towards explaining why its inner loop always shows up high in > profiling: cache misses are routine. And the size of those tables is > at least linear in the number of keywords --- perhaps worse than linear, > I'm not sure. Adding a bunch of keywords *will* cost us in performance. > I'm not willing to pay that cost for something that adds neither > features nor spec compliance.
Where are we with this patch? Fabien, are you going to submit an updated version which addresses the objections, or should I mark it Returned With Feedback? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
