On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Jan de Visser <j...@de-visser.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
