On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 12:51:43PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Gavin Flower > <gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz> wrote: > >> Is this completely unrealistic or is it carved in stone PostgreSQL will > >> always be a C project forever and ever? > >> > > From my very limited understanding, PostgreSQL is more likely to be > > converted to C++! > > I'm tempted to snarkily reply that we should start by finishing the > conversion of PostgreSQL from LISP to C before we worry about > converting it to anything else. There are various code comments that > imply that it actually was LISP at one time and I can certainly > believe that given our incredibly wasteful use of linked lists in so > many places. gram.y asserts that this problem was fixed as far as the > grammar is concerned... > > * AUTHOR DATE MAJOR EVENT > * Andrew Yu Sept, 1994 > POSTQUEL to SQL conversion > * Andrew Yu Oct, 1994 lispy > code conversion > > ...but I think it'd be fair to say that even there it was fixed only in part.
David Gould (added to Cc:) mentioned that he had some ideas as to how to address this. Best, David. -- David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
