In the past couple of years a lot of stuff has been removed from the
core - even the ODBC driver (which is ways more important than, let's
say, PL/PHP) has been removed from the core - so why should a new PL be
integrated now if considerably more important components will remain
external?
Best regards,
Hans
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>
>>I'm not convinced that PLs are more tied to the core than say OpenFTS,
>>and if we can't maintain that kind of thing externally, then this whole
>>extension thing sounds like a failure to me.
>
>
> It's *possible* to do it. Whether it's a net savings of effort is
> questionable. For instance, I've had to hack plperl and plpgsql
> over the past couple days to support OUT parameters, and the only
> reason I didn't have to hack the other two standard PLs is that they
> are a few features shy of a load already. I'm pretty sure pl/r and
> pl/java will need changes to support this feature too. If they were in
> core CVS then I'd consider it part of my responsibility to fix 'em
> ... but they aren't, so it isn't my problem, so it falls on Joe and
> Thomas to get up to speed on what I've been doing and do likewise.
> Is that really a win?
>
> The point here is really that we keep finding reasons to, if not
> flat-out change the interface to PLs, at least expand their
> responsibilities. Not to push it too hard, but we still have only
> one PL with a validator procedure, which IIRC was your own addition
> to that API. How come they don't all have validators?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
--
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Schoengrabern 134, A-2020 Hollabrunn, Austria
Tel: +43/664/393 39 74
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at
