On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 10:54:10AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 6:44 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > > Good point, but if there are multiple APIs, it makes shell script
> > > flexibility even more useful.
> >
> > This is really the key point for me. There are so many existing tools
> > that store a file someplace that we really can't ever hope to support
> > them all in core, or even to have well-written extensions that support
> > them all available on PGXN or wherever. We need to integrate with the
> > tools that other people have created, not try to reinvent them all in
> > PostgreSQL.
>
> So, this goes to what I was just mentioning to Bruce independently- you
> could have made the same argument about FDWs, but it just doesn't
> actually hold any water. Sure, some of the FDWs aren't great, but
> there's certainly no shortage of them, and the ones that are
> particularly important (like postgres_fdw) are well written and in core.
No, no one made that argument. It isn't clear how a shell script API
would map to relational database queries. The point is how well the
APIs match, and then if they are close, does it give us the flexibility
we need. You can't just look at flexibility without an API match.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
