Re: [GENERAL] PlPython - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From elein
Subject Re: [GENERAL] PlPython
Date
Msg-id 200306231442.42468.elein@varlena.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] PlPython  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] PlPython  (Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>)
List pgsql-hackers
I thought there would be a relatively clear way
to alias them both to the same language library for
a release or two.  But I see your point on transitioning.
Clear notice is really important.

plpython should be phased out if it is not replaced
within a release or two.

If only the change could be transparent to those
people who are not using any untrusted features.

Maybe it is better to break everyone's plpython functions
in 7.4.  That would certainly make sure everyone heard
of the change from trusted to untrusted.  But explanations
of what exactly that means should also be included in the
release notes.

elein

PS: I've built and tested the plpython patch against
7.3.2 and am happy it does not affect the features I count
on.  I'd do it against the development release but
I can't get it to build (for other reasons).

On Monday 23 June 2003 13:53, Tom Lane wrote:
> elein  <elein@varlena.com> writes:
> > For 7.4 (which I expect is the patch's target) it might be
> > best to make both names point to the same thing with a
> > clear release note that says that they are the same thing
> > and that plpython[u] is now untrusted.
>
> I don't know any way to actually do that, though.  If we put two entries
> in pg_language then functions created in plpython will stay associated
> with that entry.  That'd probably be the worst of all possible worlds,
> since a person looking at pg_language would quite reasonably assume that
> plpython was still trusted and the untrusted plpythonu was just an
> addition.  (Especially if he happened to know that such an addition was
> planned long ago.)  You could shoot yourself in the foot pretty badly
> with such a misunderstanding :-(
>
> The behavior that I think would be most useful would be to automatically
> transpose CREATE FUNCTION ... LANGUAGE "plpython" into CREATE FUNCTION
> ... LANGUAGE "plpythonu".  Which we could do with an ugly hack in CREATE
> FUNCTION (ugly, but no worse than things we've done to index opclass
> names, for example).  But it could be too confusing.
>
>             regards, tom lane
>
>

--
=============================================================
elein@varlena.com     Database Consulting     www.varlena.com
PostgreSQL General Bits    http:/www.varlena.com/GeneralBits/
   "Free your mind the rest will follow" -- en vogue


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ronald Khoo
Date:
Subject: 2PC: discussion in comp.arch
Next
From: "Reuven M. Lerner"
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Many Pl/PgSQL parameters -> AllocSetAlloc(128)?