Postgres rewritten in Rust, now passing 100% of the Postgres regression tests

Post by mvanbaak » Fri, Jul 10, 2026, 5:06 PM UTC

bakugo wrote: post #104

dirkc wrote: post #78

How would one go about reviewing a piece of code like this? One of the things I'd typically do is peek at the commit history. Seeing what people worked on and how they did it tends to say a lot about a project. But with LLMs generating 7101 commits in less than a month that isn't feasible. Even looking at a single day is way too much [1]. It probably also doesn't make sense since the commits content won't tell you mu…

Vibe code was never meant to be reviewed. These rewrites are just test-driven development taken to the absolute extreme. Created under the hope that the existing tests are exhaustive and cover every relevant use case, such that if they all pass, the rewrite must be at least as good as the original. So just go with the vibes and burn tokens until they pass, and your job is done. In practice, this is never true for any…

Post by Stalecelin » Fri, Jul 10, 2026, 5:07 PM UTC

dvhh wrote: post #558

malisper wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that most of the unsafes are confined to the parser which was generated by running c2rust over the Postgres parser. The Postgres parser is itself generated from yacc/bison, so I decided to port it over mechanically rather than idiomatically. If there's particular unsafes that you think are egregious, let me know.

I don't know if converting the code could be an issue with copyright, but might be contrived as plagiarism

Post by throwitaway222 » Fri, Jul 10, 2026, 5:13 PM UTC

fpgaminer wrote: post #292

film42 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A thread per connection is a almost always the correct decision for performance, but by choosing a process per connection, postgres is able to let you load whatever sketchy extensions you want. Worst case you crash the process, not the database. It would be nice if you could strike a balance so a segfaul in the extension only crashes a small percentage of connections, not the whole thing.

If it's a choice between performance and being able to "safely" run sketchy extensions, I'd rather have performance.

Post by SirHackalot » Fri, Jul 10, 2026, 5:14 PM UTC

briandw wrote: post #392

munchler wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Code is code. It either does the job or doesn't. Surely that is not the only dimension that matters when evaluating software. Maintainability and readability, for example, are crucial for any long-lived project.

“Does the job” means all of those things. Figure out what’s important, find a way to measure it (could be also be qualitative.) How does the AI generated code do? If you simply say its no good because of the way it was created, it’s not a rational decision process.

Post by cestith » Fri, Jul 10, 2026, 5:40 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #677

cestith wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn’t written by a mechanical process, though. It was ported (translated) from an existing creative work into a new language. Surely you wouldn’t say a Spanish translation of a Harry Potter work is in the public domain while the original work is under copyright?

I would agree with you but for the author’s attempt to publish it under a new license. I think they can either claim it’s a new work (in which case it’s public domain) or claim it’s a derivative work (in which case I don’t think they can change the license). I imagine a court would call it a derivative work if tested.