Josh Berkus wrote:
>People,
>
>
>
>>>So, why tie it into the PostgreSQL source tree? Won't it be popular
>>>enough to live on its own, that it has to be distributed as part of the
>>>core?
>>>
>>>
>
>Personally, I find it rather inconsistent to have any PL, other than PL/pgSQL,
>as part of the core distribution -- when we are pushing the interfaces, such
>as JDBC and libpqxx to seperate modules in pgFoundry. Either we're trying
>to lighten up the core, or we're not. But right now there seems to be no
>logic in operation.
>
>I do think, though, that we need some system to build RPMs for all the
>pgFoundry stuff ...
>
>
>
Server-side PLs might have quite different requirements from Client
Interfaces. I don't think you can simply extrapolate in this way.
Personally, I hate the idea of having to write stuff like this example
Joe Conway gave the other day from PL/R:
#if (CATALOG_VERSION_NO <= 200211021)
#define PG_VERSION_73_COMPAT
#elif (CATALOG_VERSION_NO <= 200310211)
#define PG_VERSION_74_COMPAT
#else
#define PG_VERSION_75_COMPAT
#endif
and all the consequent mess.
Yuck.
Frankly, although I am a relative newcomer around here, I am not
convinced that "lightening the core" has been a great success, or can be
made to be so. Certainly Peter's comments on the history to date suggest
that a re-evaluation might be in order.
cheers
andrew
