Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Marko Kreen
Subject Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Date
Msg-id e51f66da0807280948q793f8979hbc03ec3b5f42f951@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?  ("Asko Oja" <ascoja@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 7/28/08, Asko Oja <ascoja@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Would capability to do remote procedure calls useful addition to PostgreSQL
> feature set?

I agree with Tom/Simon on the topic of builtin remote calls - if there
is a plan to implement CREATE REMOTE TABLE/VIEW (builtin remote views)
then it should be quite easy to extend the implementation to functions:
CREATE REMOTE FUNCTION.  Thus making the PL version of remote calls
redundant.

Although that seems a far way off.

Btw, one thing that could be immediately useful would be to extract the
connection defining part from SQL-MED and add that to core, so that dblink,
plproxy and dbi-link could share that.  But that needs someone who has
ability to process a 500+ page standard.

-- 
marko


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Stephen R. van den Berg"
Date:
Subject: Re: Protocol 3, Execute, maxrows to return, impact?
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Protocol 3, Execute, maxrows to return, impact?