Re: pltcl_*mod commands are broken on Solaris 10 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pltcl_*mod commands are broken on Solaris 10
Date
Msg-id 16136.1216827830@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pltcl_*mod commands are broken on Solaris 10  (Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM>)
Responses Re: pltcl_*mod commands are broken on Solaris 10  (Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM>)
List pgsql-hackers
Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM> writes:
> Tom Lane napsal(a):
>> Actually it looks like it's been a very long time since these scripts
>> got any love anyway.  There's no reason anymore to split modules into
>> multiple rows (not since TOAST...) and they're not schema-safe either.
>> Anybody feel like cleaning them up?  Or should we leave 'em as-is
>> for compatibility reasons?

> Just a dumb question, does we need this functionality? Does anybody use it?

Well, autoloading Tcl scripts is an extremely standard thing to do in
the Tcl world.  It makes sense to me for pltcl to provide a way of
autoloading code out of the database instead of some random search path
or other --- particularly for trusted pltcl, which shouldn't allow
access to the server filesystem at all.

Whether these particular scripts are the best possible implementation of
the concept is another argument, of course.  But I wouldn't agree with
just ripping 'em out.  Note that my complaints above don't bear on
functionality, at least not unless someone is working in an environment
where the search_path varies a lot.  So the lack of maintenance effort
doesn't indicate that they're not getting used.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] "\ef " in psql
Next
From: "Greg Sabino Mullane"
Date:
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?