Re: [Review] Re: minor patch submission: CREATE CAST ... AS EXPLICIT
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>,
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
cedric@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>,
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>
Date: 2013-07-08T19:15:40Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 06/24/2013 06:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@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