Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables)

I wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> On 2018-12-29 16:59:52 -0500, John Naylor wrote:
>>> I think 0001 with complete keyword lookup replacement is in decent
>>> enough shape to post. Make check-world passes. A few notes and
>>> caveats:

>> I tried to take this for a spin, an for me the build fails because various
>> frontend programs don't have KeywordOffsets/Strings defined, but reference it
>> through various functions exposed to the frontend (like fmtId()).  That I see
>> that error but you don't is probably related to me using -fuse-ld=gold in
>> CFLAGS.

> I was just about to point out that the cfbot is seeing that too ...

Aside from the possible linkage problem, this will need a minor rebase
over 4879a5172, which rearranged some of plpgsql's calls of
ScanKeywordLookup.

While I don't think it's going to be hard to resolve these issues,
I'm wondering where we want to go with this.  Is anyone excited
about pursuing the perfect-hash-function idea?  (Joerg's example
function looked pretty neat to me.)  If we are going to do that,
does it make sense to push this version beforehand?

			regards, tom lane