Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > I don't see any strong reason for enforcing that as policy, if the
> > language maintainer wants an entry. (But is Alvaro the maintainer of
> > pl/php?)
Yes, I have started work on PL/php and currently I'm the only
maintainer. I must add that the code is far from ready yet, but I
expect that by the time 8.2 comes around it will be in much better
shape. (To the point that it doesn't take a single-line function to
crash the server, for example.)
> > My recollection is that we identified some pros and cons of
> > having listings for non-core languages, and decided it should be up
> > to the language maintainers to decide what they want.
>
> Perhaps Alvaro can identify the reasons why he wants this done and then
> we can determine whether it's a good idea.
Well, it's one step less for installing the language. Users just
install the library and issue the appropiate CREATE LANGUAGE call; no
need to mess with specifying the handler/validator function name.
(Which is not a very big deal, granted, but it's precisely the reason
why pg_pltemplate was invented.)
I just realized that this is the first out-of-core language for which
this has been proposed. I wonder why Joe Conway didn't submit an entry
for PL/R. (Is there any other language out there?)
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
