From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "=?utf-8?B?55uP5LiA?=" <w@hidva.com>
cc: "=?utf-8?B?cGdzcWwtaGFja2Vycw==?=" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal for Prototype Implementation to Enhance C/C++ Interoperability in PostgreSQL
In-reply-to: <tencent_319A34A95B66D9B4396133AF@qq.com>
References: <tencent_319A34A95B66D9B4396133AF@qq.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "=?utf-8?B?55uP5LiA?=" <w@hidva.com>
	message dated "Sun, 07 May 2023 14:48:14 +0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <50311.1683472738.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sun, 07 May 2023 11:18:58 -0400
Message-ID: <50312.1683472738@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/50312.1683472738%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"=3D?utf-8?B?55uP5LiA?=3D" <w@hidva.com> writes:
> The proposed implementation can significantly improve the interoperabili=
ty between C and C++ code in PostgreSQL. It allows for seamless integratio=
n of C++ code with PostgreSQL, without the need for complex workarounds or=
 modifications to the existing codebase.

That'd be nice to have, certainly ...

> I have submitted the implementation on&nbsp;[GitHub](https://github.com/=
postgres/postgres/commit/1a9a2790430f256d9d0cc371249e43769d93eb8e#diff-6b6=
034caa00ddf38f641cbd10d5a5d1bb7135f8b23c5a879e9703bd11bd8240f). I would ap=
preciate it if you could review the implementation and provide feedback.

... but I think this patch has no hope of being adequately portable.
It seems extremely specific to one particular C++ implementation
(unless you can show that every single thing you've used here is
in the C++ standard), and then for good measure you've thrown in
a new dependency on pthreads.  On top of that, doesn't this
require us to move our minimum language requirement to C++-something?
We just barely got done deciding C99 was okay to use.

			regards, tom lane