On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <hannu@krosing.net> writes:
>> And it would be nice, if some well-maintained sample language (pl/sh or
>> even pl/dummy) which serves as a sample of latest ways to make use of
>> pl/function support in core pg code would be included in core as well.
>
> And why do you think the above three don't serve that purpose? Or even
> more to the point, how likely is it that an unused "dummy" language
> would be well-maintained?
For whatever it's worth, I'm in the middle of writing a PL
(PL/LOLCODE, specifically), and have found helpful examples of how to
do stuff in PL/pgSQL, PL/Perl, *and* pl/proxy. The examples in the
documentation followed by a bunch of hair pulling while reading
PL/pgSQL were enough to get started, without the benefit of a dummy
language. That's not to say that a dummy language wouldn't be useful,
only that for a coder of my caliber (i.e. Not Terribly Skilled but
Able to Code Myself Out of a Wet Paper Bag) it wasn't necessary.
Because pl/proxy is not in core, I didn't immediately look to it for
examples, but was pointed there by a helpful soul on IRC.
My own opinion is that though there have been several in recent years,
new PLs are written rarely enough that "best practices" don't change a
whole lot. PL/Perl and PL/pgSQL particularly are very well maintained,
and thus demonstrate in most cases a perfectly acceptable way of
writing a PL.
As to whether or not pl/proxy should be in core, I have no particular
opinion. PL/LOLCODE probably should not be. :)
- Josh / eggyknap
