Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 14562.1546986683@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables) (John Naylor <john.naylor@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables)
Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
John Naylor <john.naylor@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Just a couple comments about the module: > -If you qualify the function's module name as you did > (PerfectHash::generate_hash_function), you don't have to export the > function into the callers namespace, so you can skip the @EXPORT_OK > setting. Most of our modules don't export. OK by me. I was more concerned about hiding the stuff that isn't supposed to be exported. > -There is a bit of a cognitive clash between $case_sensitive in > gen_keywordlist.pl and $case_insensitive in PerfectHash.pm. They each > make sense in their own file, but might it be worth using one or the > other? Yeah, dunno. It seems to make sense for the command-line-level default of gen_keywordlist.pl to be "case insensitive", since most users want that. But that surely shouldn't be the default in PerfectHash.pm, and I'm not very sure how to reconcile the discrepancy. > In the committed keyword patch, I noticed that in common/keywords.c, > the array length is defined with > ScanKeywordCategories[SCANKEYWORDS_NUM_KEYWORDS] > but other keyword arrays just have ...[]. Is there a reason for the difference? The length macro was readily available there so I used it. AFAIR that wasn't true elsewhere, though I might've missed something. It's pretty much just belt-and-suspenders coding anyway, since all those arrays are machine generated ... regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: