Re: C vs. C++ contributions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Marc Lavergne
Subject Re: C vs. C++ contributions
Date
Msg-id 3D6C53E7.2030608@richlava.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: C vs. C++ contributions  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: C vs. C++ contributions  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
That's an quite a bite to chew given my level of experience with 
PostgreSQL internals! However, I will keep it in mind and whatever I do 
will be fully abstracted (already is actually) so that it should just a 
matter of snapping it into place when 7.4 forks. Realistically, I can't 
comment from an informed position on this yet. When I get a chance to 
look into what is happening in 7.3 and the 7.4 roadmap, I will post back 
if I feel I can provide something of substance.

Cheers,

Marc

Neil Conway wrote:
> Marc Lavergne <mlavergne-pub@richlava.com> writes:
> 
>>PostgreSQL parse/bind/execute Layer:
>>------------------------------------
>>This would be mimicked since PostgreSQL doesn't support it
>>natively.
> 
> 
> What's stopping you from implementing native support for this? There
> will hopefully be an FE/BE protocol change during the 7.4 development
> cycle, which should give you the opportunity to make any
> protocol-level changes required to implement this properly.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Neil
> 




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [SQL] LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1?
Next
From: Gavin Sherry
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposed GUC Variable