Re: plpgsql extension install nitpick - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: plpgsql extension install nitpick
Date
Msg-id 1309699801.7252.4.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: plpgsql extension install nitpick  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: plpgsql extension install nitpick
List pgsql-hackers
On lör, 2011-07-02 at 23:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> We just went through an exercise to suppress comments on functions
> that are meant to be accessed through operators, and this seems like
> much the same kind of situation.  I think it will not be long before
> COMMENT ON PROCEDURAL LANGUAGE is a historical curiosity, because
> everybody will ship their PLs as extensions and the comment on the
> extension will be the thing to look at.  IOW, the fact that there even
> is a database object type "procedural language" will soon be an
> implementation detail of interest only to PL authors.

Well, you still write functions in the language and refer to it in the
SQL commands, so it is reasonable to know about the language as opposed
to the extension it is in.  You wouldn't remove man pages just because
an RPM package description exists.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: `make world` exit code
Next
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: %ENV warnings during builds