| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Kurt Harriman <harriman(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Mostly Harmless: Welcoming our C++ friends |
| Date: | 2008-12-16 00:32:38 |
| Message-ID: | 14877.1229387558@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Ron Mayer wrote:
>> The one use-case I can think of that imports a pile of C++ code
>> is the GEOS library that PostGIS uses (used?):
> There are also quite a number of OSS algorithms, useful for query
> optimization or otherwise, which are written in C++. For example, the
> fully OSS implementation of annealing (potentially useful as a
> replacement for GEQO) is in C++.
Well, if we were actually contemplating using it, we'd rewrite it in C.
I don't see anyone around here who's in favor of increasing the minimum
build requirement to C++. (Even if we were, there's exactly 0 chance
that an existing hunk of C++ code would follow our error handling and
memory allocation conventions, so we'd have to do significant rewriting
anyway.)
The PostGIS-style case, where someone writes some code to provide a
mostly arm's-length interface to an external library written in C++,
is the only case I can see much use for. And that still leaves me
wondering what's the point of making our headers C++ clean, because
that external library isn't gonna include 'em anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-16 00:35:38 | Re: [ADMIN] shared_buffers and shmmax |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-12-16 00:26:35 | Re: Looking for someone with MinGW |