On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers