Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, 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: 2016-09-30 19:15:29
Message-ID: 117edb9c-1ddd-9305-8946-82c6ff63ac20@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On 9/6/16 2:58 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> 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++.

I have committed 0001, 0002, 0003, 0006, as well as 0012. Thomas Munro
had some interesting comments on 0007-0009 that are worth considering
further.

The rest of the patches will be kept around for future amusement.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message kbrannen 2016-09-30 19:19:03 Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases
Previous Message kbrannen 2016-09-30 18:45:25 Re: Graphical entity relation model

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2016-09-30 19:24:09 Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres
Previous Message David Fetter 2016-09-30 19:12:32 Re: PoC: Make it possible to disallow WHERE-less UPDATE and DELETE