On 1/9/17 11:51 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Anyway, with regards to either Rust (which I know very little about)
or C++ (which I know more about) I think it would be more promising to
think about enabling extensions to be written in such languages than
to think about converting the entire source base.  A system like

Yeah, converting the entire codebase is probably doomed to failure from the start.

PostgreSQL is almost a language of its own; we don't really code for
PostgreSQL in C, but in "PG-C".  Learning the PG-specific idioms is
arguably more work than learning C itself, and that would still be
true, I think, if we had a "PG-C++" or a "PG-Rust" or a "PG-D"
variant.  Still, if having such variants drew more programmers to work
on extending PostgreSQL, I think that would be worth some work on our
part to enable it.  However, maintaining multiple copies of our
1.2-million-line source base just for easier reference by people more
familiar with one of those languages than with C sounds to me like it
would create more problems than it would solve.

I do wonder if there are parts of the codebase that would be much better suited to a language other than C, and could reasonably be ported. Especially if that could be done in such a way that the net result is still C code so we're not adding dependencies to non developers (similar to bison).

Extensions are a step in that direction, but they're ultimately not core Postgres (which is a different issue).
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to