Re: RustgreSQL

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Jan de Visser <jan(at)de-visser(dot)net> wrote:
> Be that as it may, I don't think you have convinced anybody that that is
> something worth doing. The fact it *could* be done doesn't mean it *should* be
> done.

+1.

> What you are proposing is not going to happen unless you get some serious buy-
> in from a significant number of veteran contributors. And those are exactly the
> people that say "C? What's the problem?"

+1.

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. I can't
see why we'd want to start converting even a part of the code to
something else. Perhaps it seems like a good idea from 10,000 feet,
but in practice I believe it would be fraught with difficulties - and
if it injected even a few additional instructions into hot code paths,
it would be a performance loser.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company