Re: Foreign keys for non-default datatypes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, CG <cgg007(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Foreign keys for non-default datatypes
Date: 2006-03-03 21:11:49
Message-ID: 5971.1141420309@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> Speaking of parsers, did anyone else notice that gcc in its latest
>>> release has ripped out the bison based parser for C and Objective-C in
>>> favor of a hand cut RD parser?
>>
>> Yeah, I did. I wonder what sort of effort they went to write the new
>> parser.

> This is the new parser
> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/tags/gcc_4_1_0_release/gcc/c-parser.c?view=markup&rev=111560

> It's 6000 lines long.

Given that we whack the grammar around on a pretty regular basis,
I can't imagine that it'd be a smart idea to go to a handmade parser.
gcc is dealing with a very stable language definition so the tradeoffs
for them are a lot different.

Be nice if bison were a tad faster though :-(

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message tmorelli 2006-03-03 21:14:45 Problemas with gram.y
Previous Message elein 2006-03-03 20:51:09 Re: Foreign keys for non-default datatypes