pgrust

> My understanding is that they used c2rust, and then told the LLM/Agents to make the code more idiomatic rust, while also using the PG test suite as a feedback mechanism. This is correct > and thus a fork, and should thus have the original license and copyright preserved) This is not correct. The Postgres license is permissive. We need to include a copy of the license (which we do in the NOTICE file[0]) but we CAN relicense the Postgres code however we want as long as we meet the requirements of the license. pgrust is a derived work of Postgres, but Postgres allows derived works to be under a different license. [0] https://github.com/malisper/pgrust/blob/main/NOTICE

Author here. Let me know if you have any questions about the post or about pgrust. Let me take a shot at answering what I think will be the most common question: how can I trust pgrust? Our #1 priority right now is correctness. Over the past two weeks, I've done a mix of formal verification and differential fuzz testing. We've been able to prove over 1000 user facing functions have the exact same logic in both pgrust and postgres (see the proofs directory if you're curious). For cases where formal verification is not easy, we've taken the c implementation of a function and the rust implementation of a function and ran millions of inputs through each of them and confirmed they gave the same results every time. We've only covered about 15% of the surface area so far, but in the process, we've discovered ~100 bugs in pgrust and ~20 bugs in P

main indeed has two commits, but it clearly states the location of the rest of the commits, so I wouldn't be critical of main itself. hey claude, do a breakthrough You can find the actual git history at the v0.2 github tag. Co-Authored-By: Fable <noreply@anthropic.com> Now we see https://github.com/malisper/pgrust/tree/v0.2 has almost 6000 commits in it, with the very first one on 2026-07-02. That's a lot of token momentum! It's easy to claim AI slop nowadays, but you should still mistrust-but-verify.