| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres |
| Date: | 2016-09-06 18:58:34 |
| Message-ID: | e8e7e5a7-0308-2c36-d32a-7aab16ba498c@iki.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 08/31/2016 04:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I developed a minimally invasive patch for C++ support a few years ago
> shortly after I wrote that blog post. Since there appears to have been
> some interest here now, I have updated that and split it up into logical
> chunks.
>
> So here you go.
Looking at this with the POV of what would make sense, even if we don't
care about C++.
> The patches are numbered approximately in increasing order of dubiosity.
> So 0001 is probably a straight bug fix, 0002 and 0003 are arguably
> minor bug fixes as well. The patches through 0012 can probably be
> considered for committing in some form. After that it gets a bit hackish.
0001-0003 look clear to me as well. 0006 - 0009 also seem OK. The rest
really only make sense if we decided to make the switch to C++.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2016-09-06 19:08:37 | Re: PostgreSQL Database performance |
| Previous Message | Christian Convey | 2016-09-06 18:56:18 | Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-06 18:59:14 | Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem |
| Previous Message | Christian Convey | 2016-09-06 18:56:18 | Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres |