Chris Browne wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:87hc82mrna.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com" type="cite"><pre wrap=""><a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"href="mailto:jonah.harris@gmail.com">jonah.harris@gmail.com</a> ("Jonah H. Harris")
writes:</pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">Having done quite a bit of internals work with SAP DB (which is an
amalgamation of C, C++, and Pascal), I completely agree. The entire
system, if possible, should be in a single language. </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">
Note that this actually *isn't* possible; PostgreSQL is implemented in
a number of languages already:a) C, obviouslyb) m4 and some autoconf macrologyc) GNU maked) There's some awke) Shell
scriptf)Flexg) Bison
And I'm not sure that's all there is :-). </pre></blockquote><br /> Agree on Andrew's point of "continuation of this
threadis pointless" - but not being very pointed, I'd point out that the various integrations with PL/Perl, PL/Python,
PL/Tcl,and PL/PgSQL means that PostgreSQL is both intimate about the bindings between C and the language, and knowledge
aboutthe languages themselves.<br /><br /> So, "all one language" is indeed unrealistic.<br /><br /> But, this thread
hassplit. The first question was whether PostgreSQL should be re-written in C++ or something else, where the answer
seemsto be almost a universal "no". The second question is whether PostgreSQL can be extended with pluggable languages,
forwhich I think the answer is already a yes. If some parts of PostgreSQL are not performance bottlenecks, and they are
extremelycomplicated to write in C, and very easy to write in something else common and simple (I've never used LUA
myself?),I imagine it would be acceptable to the community.<br /><br /> Cheers,<br /> mark<br /><br /><pre
class="moz-signature"cols="72">--
Mark Mielke <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark@mielke.cc"><mark@mielke.cc></a>
</pre>
