Re: Anonymous code blocks vs CREATE LANGUAGE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Fetter
Subject Re: Anonymous code blocks vs CREATE LANGUAGE
Date
Msg-id 20090922175632.GS31599@fetter.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Anonymous code blocks vs CREATE LANGUAGE  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 01:50:45PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > I'm going through the anonymous-code-blocks patch now.  There are
> > some things missing, notably the ability to create a language with
> > an anonymous-code-block handler.  The only way you can do it is to
> > have a pg_pltemplate entry, which is certainly not good enough for
> > languages not distributed with the core.  The obvious solution is
> > to add an optional clause "INLINE function_name" to CREATE
> > LANGUAGE, paralleling the VALIDATOR clause.  This'd require adding
> > INLINE as a keyword.  (I assume it could be an unreserved keyword,
> > but haven't actually tried yet.)  Does anyone object to that plan,
> > or want to propose a different keyword?
> 
> Should we consider another generic options syntax, while we're on a
> roll?  In the long run, that's the best way to avoid having a
> zillion keywords.
> 
> CREATE LANGUAGE name (TRUSTED, PROCEDURAL, HANDLER x, VALIDATOR y,
> INLINE z);

I understand that some PLs are OO, functional, etc., but for our
purposes, isn't PROCEDURAL just noise?

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Largeobject access controls
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Anonymous code blocks vs CREATE LANGUAGE