Re: RustgreSQL

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jan de Visser <jan(at)de-visser(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz>
Subject: Re: RustgreSQL
Date: 2017-01-10 15:55:15
Message-ID: 22144.1484063715@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm not meaning to be funny or sarcastic or disrespectful when I say
> that I think C is the best possible language for PostgreSQL. It works
> great, and we've got a ton of investment in making it work.

Yeah. There's certainly a whole lot of path dependency in that statement
--- if you were starting to write Postgres from scratch today, you would
very likely choose some other language. But given where we are, there's
just not a lot of attraction in trying to convert to another language.

As other people noted, the one path that might possibly make sense is
a gradual upgrade to C++. But getting past the exceptions issue is a
pretty high bar that we'd have to clear before we could do much in
that direction; and it's not obvious that C++ would offer enough benefit
to be worth it. Most of us would rather spend our time on new features
or performance improvements, not fighting with a language changeover.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-01-10 15:58:08 Re: [HACKERS] Questionable tag usage
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-01-10 15:54:21 Re: [HACKERS] Questionable tag usage