On 8/16/16 12:53 PM, Joy Arulraj wrote:
> > The whole thing would make a lot more sense given a credible design
> > for error handling that keeps both languages happy.
>
> Well, getting so that we can at least compile in both systems would
> certainly increase the chances of somebody being willing to work on
> such a design. And if nobody ever does, then at least people who want
> to fork and do research projects based on PostgreSQL will have
> slightly less work to do when they want to hack it up. PostgreSQL
> seems to be a very popular starting point for research work, but a
> paper I read recently complained about the antiquity of our code base.
> I prefer to call that backward-compatibility, but at some point people
> stop thinking of you as backward-compatible and instead think of you
> as simply backward.
>
> I agree, this was the main reason why we wanted to add support for C++.
Joy, do you have an idea what a *minimally invasive* patch for C++
support would look like? That's certainly the first step here.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) mobile: 512-569-9461
