[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Gevik Babakhani") writes:
> It might look like an impossible goal to achieve.. But if there is
> any serious plan/idea/ammo for this, I believe it would be very
> beneficial to the continuity of PG.Actually, I imagine that such a rewrite would run a very considerable risk of injuring the continuity of PostgreSQL VERY BADLY, to the point of causing community fractures and forks of the codebase. When you write something in C++, you have to pick a subset of the language that is supported fairly identically (in semantics) by all of the compilers that you wish to support. Seeing as how PostgreSQL is already a mature system written in C, a rewrite into C++, *which is a different language* that is NOT simply a superset of C functionality, would require substantial effort, lead to fractious disagreements, and would, without ANY doubt, fracture the code base into *AT LEAST* two versions, namely: a) The existing C code base, and b) One (possibly more) C++ rewrites This does not strike me as a particularly useful exercise. If I intended such a rewrite, I'd much rather consider using something *interestingly* different from C, like Erlang or Eiffel or Haskell. -- "cbbrowne","@","linuxdatabases.info" http://linuxfinances.info/info/sgml.html For a good prime call: 391581 * 2^216193 - 1 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Szymon Rusinkiewicz) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
