Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> It seems like the approach Andres is proposing here could work pretty
> well. I think the biggest possible problem is that any semi-serious
> developer will basically have to have LLVM installed. To build the
> software, you wouldn't need LLVM unless you want to build with JIT
> support. But to modify the software, you'll need LLVM for any
> modification that touches node definitions. I don't know how much of a
> nuisance that's likely to be for people, especially people developing
> on less-mainstream platforms.
I'm afraid that's going to be a deal-breaker for lots of people.
It's fine for prototyping the idea but we'll need to find another
implementation before we can move to commit.
> One concern I have is about whether the
> code that uses LLVM is likely to be dependent on specific LLVM
> versions.
Yeah, that's one of the reasons it's a deal-breaker. We've been able to
insist that everybody touching configure use the same autoconf version,
but I don't think that could possibly fly for LLVM. But without that,
all the derived files would change in random ways depending on who'd
committed last. Even if it's only whitespace changes, that'd be a mess.
regards, tom lane