[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Dunstan) writes: > 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.
I expect it would be both a little better *and* a little worse than that. On the "better" side, I don't expect that, in this instance, there would be terribly much need for anything but the shallowest understanding of Lua. If this were all there was to it, I'd contend that there's little to object to. However, there's a pretty considerable "worse" side, namely that developers would need to understand the API for interfacing between the "bits of C" that are the Lua 'external interface' and how that gets "plumbed" into PostgreSQL. *That's* got very little to do with language, per se; it has to do with the implementation of the language. -- let name="cbbrowne" and tld="acm.org" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];; http://linuxdatabases.info/info/oses.html "Real concurrency---in which one program actually continues to function while you call up and use another---is more amazing but of small use to the average person. How many programs do you have that take more than a few seconds to perform any task?" -- New York Times, 4/25/89 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers