4 ms·
Well, I think what they're saying is that they'd rather have bugs in code they've written than in code that is written by other people and in another language,
by d--b 6y ago
Well, I think what they're saying is that they'd rather have bugs in code they've written than in code that is written by other people and in another language, and for which they don't control the patching pipeline.
If RocksDB had had no bugs, they wouldn't have needed to write Pebble.
- danesparza 6y agoI'm sure 'not have to cross the cgo boundary' is significant when debugging, as well.
- pdpi 6y agoThat's an argument for them using it, but it's also basically arguing why nobody else should.
- strken 6y agoAvoiding cgo would be a selling point for anyone else using go. Presumably other pure go kv stores like bbolt/badger/goleveldb would also solve that problem, but I don't know enough about them to understand the trade-offs.
- scott_s 6y agoYes, but I think CockroadDB is in also in a position most other people are not: they are a database, so data storage is not only their expertise, it's their reason for existing. They have the people, the expertise, and it's core to their business. Most people don't have that, so they can't justify writing their own storage engine.