>From: "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>
>To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@hotmail.com>
>CC: a_dursun@hotmail.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
>Subject: Re: [HACKERS] proposal for PL packages for 8.3.
>Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 11:27:01 -0500
>
>On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 06:34:16AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > > Is it would be nice , if packages have been ;
> >
> > > 1. Package level variables (Public variables)
> >
> > is very hard for imlementation, and it's actually impossible. Needs
>large
> > changes in code
> > > 2. Package member level variables (Private variable)
> >
> > I plan it, in every PL language
> > > 3. Public and private package members
> > ?? I see sence only for functions. I don't wont supply schemas.
> >
> > >4. Syntax must be as closer as plpgsql (declaration, assingment etc)
> > >rather than any syntax that we have to learn :-)
> > PostgreSQL support other languages than PL/pgSQL. We need universal
>syntax
> > for plperl and others too
>
>Why? Don't those other languages have support of their own for this?
>
>If we try and make this completely cross-language I fear we'll end up
>with something so watered down and obtuse that it'll be useless. I think
>it makes much more sense to design something for plpgsql and only
>commonize whatever it makes sense to.
What I know, plperl has shared variables. Missing shared functions and
loader for initialisation of variables. I don't agree with partial solution
only for plpgsql. It can generate more limits in future.
Pavel
_________________________________________________________________
Citite se osamele? Poznejte nekoho vyjmecneho diky Match.com.
http://www.msn.cz/
