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
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 |