Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm not really interested in supporting PostgreSQL code written in
> other languages entirely, such as Rust, but I do think it would make
> sense to write our code so that it can be compiled using either a C
> compiler or a C++ compiler. Even if we don't ever use any C++ code in
> core, this would let people who create forks or extensions use it if
> they wished. It wouldn't be that much work to maintain, either: we'd
> just set up some buildfarm members that compiled using C++ and when
> they turned red, we'd go fix it.
I think this might have advantages purely from the standpoint of new
compilers possibly offering useful warnings we don't get now. But
if we only go this far, I'm pretty dubious that it really helps people
to develop extensions in C++. Almost invariably, if you ask *why* they
want to do that, you'll get an answer involving C++ libraries that are
not going to play very nice with our error handling or memory management
conventions. I do not see how we could C++-ify the error handling without
making a complete break with C compilers ... which is a step I don't
really want to take.
The whole thing would make a lot more sense given a credible design
for error handling that keeps both languages happy.
A lot of the other things people have muttered about, such as heavier
use of inline functions instead of macros, don't particularly need C++
at all.
regards, tom lane