On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 3:52 AM, Gavin Flower <gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz > wrote:
> On 16/08/16 18:24, dandl wrote: > >> >> Just wondering what the end goal is for this project... Is it to just >> maintain an up to date Postgres fork that will compile with a C++ compiler? >> Is it to get a conversation going for a direction for Postgres itself to >> move? The former I don't see gaining much traction or doing all that much >> for the state of the project. The latter possibly could if the community >> gets on board. >> >> I was kind of hoping that this might start off a coversation on getting postgres to support C++. > I would certainly hope the latter. Having done some work on extension >> functions and an extension language for Postgres, the current situation can >> be quite limiting. >> >> ·Parts of my code could only be written in C++, so I finished up with a >> mixed build, which is not ideal. >> >> ·My other issue was dealing with the Datum macros. Type-safe inline C++ >> functions would help reduce dumb errors. >> >> Not compelling reasons perhaps, but just a vote for a move in that >> direction, some time. >> >> I concur. > Regards >> >> David M Bennett FACS >> >> / >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> / >> >> /Andl - A New Database Language - andl.org/ >> >> I note that gcc itself is now written in C++, and so is squid (web > proxy)... > > In both cases, part of the motivation to change from C was to appeal to > new developers - from what I remember of the discussions. > > > > Cheers, > Gavin > >
