| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "A(dot)M(dot)" <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL future ideas |
| Date: | 2008-09-26 15:52:22 |
| Message-ID: | 48DD0536.7030501@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
A.M. wrote:
>
>
> Speaking of language choice, no one said that _all_ the source code
> would need to be rewritten. It would be nice, for example, if
> PostgreSQL rewrote the current GUC system with a glue language like
> Lua (which is also very C-like).
>
>
No it wouldn't. All it would mean is that you'd need developers fluent
in both languages.
If this were a greenfields project we might well now make choices other
than those made in the past, but that doesn't mean we should constantly
revisit those decisions.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dianne Yumul | 2008-09-26 16:23:21 | Re: Stroring html form settings |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-26 15:47:03 | Re: types for C function composites |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2008-09-26 16:03:20 | lock contention on parallel COPY ? |
| Previous Message | A.M. | 2008-09-26 15:39:11 | Re: PostgreSQL future ideas |